Talk:Nagios

NSCA/NRPE

How comes NRPE and NSCA are not even mentioned, whereas almost never heard of addons are ? --Olivier Debre (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'm going to start adding the major plugins here, such as NRPE and NCSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diederich (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (PST)

Pronunciation of Nagios

I reverted this change which I suspect was vandalism. If I'm wrong, please revert my change, and provide a ref. Nurg (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the screenshot sucks, someone please upload a better oneScientus (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the original pronunciation was correct. It should have been left as nɑːdʒioʊs

The Pronunciation of ‘C’ and ‘G’ generally (but not always) depends upon the letter following either 'C' or 'G'.

If the following letter is ‘E’, ‘I’ or ‘Y’, the pronunciation is said to be “soft”.

A soft ‘G’ is pronounced ‘j’ as in general, giant, gymnastic, large, energy, intelligible, changing

Greek based words are often exemptions, however, Nagios is an acronym, so the standard rule should apply.

Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_orthography g before e, i or y /dʒ/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_G The sound of a hard ‹g› (which often precedes the non-front vowels ‹a o u›) is usually [ɡ] (as in go) while the sound of a soft ‹g› (typically before ‹i› or ‹e›), depending on language, may be a fricative or affricate. In English, the sound of soft ‹g› is /dʒ/ (as in George).

http://esl.about.com/od/speakingintermediate/a/hardsoftcg.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.162.210 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

License

Is the licence GPL v2 or v3? The lede and the overview sections are contradicting each other.... AugustinMa (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

the license is not GPL at all. It's not even Open Source. See http://assets.nagios.com/licenses/nagios_open_software_license.txt 98.26.46.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Where is that linked from? If you actually download Nagios core ([1] ==> [2] ==> [3] ==> [4]), the license provided is the GPL V2, June 1991. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See also, external links

One or more IP/WP:SPA editors, who may be the same individual, have been removing the See-also entries or external links to Nagios-related sites, including notable forks of Nagios:

See also

• Shinken (software): Nagios compatible network monitoring system

External links

• Icinga, a Nagios fork

See [5] (IP); [6] (IP); [7] (IP); [8] (IP); [9] (IP); [10] (IP); [11] (SPA);

I'm going to assume good-faith, although at least one of these editors also added some highly POV text in conjunction with the deletions. See [12]: "Nagios XI™ is the most powerful IT infrastructure monitoring solution on the market," and it continues in a similar voice. This strikes me as a concerted effort to market Nagios and to obscure other similar software that meet the qualifications for WP:SEEALSO and WP:EL.

Shinken (software), for example, is a Nagios-compatible monitor, and is clearly a "related Wikipedia article[]" as specified by WP:SEEALSO. And Icinga is a notable fork of Nagios, i.e., it is software that is a modification of Nagios; this meets the WP:EL guidance of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject..."

Both of these have repeatedly been deleted with an edit summary such as it's not Nagios!!! ([13]) or not nagios ([14], [15]), which suggests at least a misunderstanding of the See also and External links sections.

What's the consensus on the inclusion of these entries? TJRC (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to Opsview were likewise repeatedly removed.

References to derivate software should absolutely be part of the article, for reference purposes if nothing else, because the historical relationship between the projects is important to each project, including the source of the fork. Similar but non-derivative should also have mention. An article is not an advertisement where no mention what so ever is made of the competition. An article should place the subject in context so it's place within the overall "marketplace", or "ecosystem" if you prefer, so that those interested in the topic have points of comparison.

Note that I'm not saying that extensive compare and contrast is required, just that links, particularly in the See Also section make sense. And when there are specific points of comparison to be made there should also be reference to other software. I find a good example in Microsoft Windows#File permissions, which compares and contrasts Microsoft Windows with the Linux and Netware operating systems. I also believe that a longer article, such as the Windows article, must be more strict to keep down article length. Shorter articles have plenty of room to paint a picture that has related material in a backround dominated by the article's subject in the foreground.

--kop (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again at [[16]] we got a problem. Is there a way to call for a wikipedia administrator so this user won't start again (the ip seems to be near nagios inc place...)?

--Naparuba (talk) 04:03, 01 march 2011 (UTC)

Ok, someone *really* needs to ban whoever keeps damaging this page. If I'm reading this right, there's a consensus to keep references to the Icinga fork and whoever keeps deleting them should be stopped. Funderburg (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now added a see also link for Icinga, which is what should have been done instead of edit warring over an external link. We do not need both a see also link and an external link, and external links which are not directly related to the subject (i.e. its own home page) are discouraged. Frankly, I don't see that the forks are really notable enough for their own articles, and should probably be merged in here, but that's a discussion for another day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Icinga and Shinken are not notable simply because the creators of those projects say they are. Opinions are not facts. The creators of the projects in question are using the Nagios page to promote their projects and/or company product. Mstarr4 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Icinga and Shinken have Wikipedia articles. That is why we assume that notability is established, not because of anything the creators of those projects might say. As related articles, links belong in the see also section. - MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This logic confuses me. The reason these links should be removed is because they have been and are continuing to attempt destruction of the Nagios name. They have been using tactics of brand confusion calling everything nagios/icinga. This is brand confusion and illegal under international law. This page is continuing this damaging behavior. It also doesn't make sense that icinga and shinken can be listed but Nagios XI can not. Can some one can explain to me why a Nagios product is not acceptable but a different product is acceptable on the Nagios page?

Request Protection?

It's becoming clear that one or more people related to the author of Nagios are constantly removing external links pointing to Icinga and other notable related projects. (see above). So a question: Should we request this page be semi-protected to start with? Funderburg (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagiosinc which has resulted in several accounts being blocked as sockpuppets. - MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)