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)

I just started, can you tell me what the pronunciation was before you changed it, Nurg? Sonic5001 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2023 (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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/English_orthography g before e, i or y /dʒ/

http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

I can't find the source code on their website, only paid and trial versions. Not open source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.60.221 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

source is at [5]. TJRC (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The license in the current SVN trunk is GPLv2: http://nagios.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/nagios/nagioscore/trunk/LICENSE?revision=12&view=markup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthemcmaster (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 February 2013 (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 [6] (IP); [7] (IP); [8] (IP); [9] (IP); [10] (IP); [11] (IP); [12] (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 [13]: "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!!! ([14]) or not nagios ([15], [16]), 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 [[17]] 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC123twytom (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review the policy on legal threats. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

This starts again with the remove of commercial tools (good) but with adding NagiosXI with "non-fact edits" just after by ABC123twytom. Is an admin can look for Sockpuppet it into User:Nagiosinc ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naparuba (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nagios-plugins controversy

You know what, I'll leave this for someone else to decide. After a more careful review I would also like to point out that the original edit is not even following appropriate wikipedia guidelines. The original states that it was a move that was not given warning, yet this article by Nagios, https://www.nagios.org/news/2014/01/nagios-plugin-team-changes/, says otherwise. What are the actual facts? This isn't able to be considered a netural standpoint. Either the paragraph should be removed (which I did) or someone should edit the section to make it neutral and include an actual section on the Nagios plugins project if other Nagios plugins project related material is going to be showing up in this article. Jhom526 (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well that's the vendor's point of view. And there are always (at least) two sides to every story. OnionRing (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems "After failing to acknowledge our reasonable requests, we updated the website to reflect the changes we had requested" doesn't say anything about giving warning. I can see how someone could construe that as an implicit warning. Also, just so no one goes digging since this is a contentious issue. Yes, I live in the TwinCities. I just moved here. I don't know anyone that works at Nagios Inc. micro.fragdev.com/daw (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, just because you write an article against something doesn't make it true. Unless I am wrong, this is the US and you cannot say that something happened without proof. The other side of it is just as liable to lying as the original. It's the equivalent of someone writing their own blog post and then linking it here as a proof that ducks are actually descendants of penguins. Your logic is completely baseless. Again, if Wikipedia is going with facts, this is NOT a fact and should not be on here. If someone wants to find trivial matters such as the argument between the two entities about the project they can find it somewhere else. What is Wikipedia gaining by having this added to something that it is hardly related to. Again I point out it's directed at "Nagios Enterprises" and not "Nagios". Jhom526 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added another reference to clarify that the vendor's opinion was not shared by all of the plugin developers involved. OnionRing (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Better than before, I still think the nagios plugins project should be mentioned... maybe someone will take the time to add info in about it. Jhom526 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Nagios XI

Nagios XI is the commercially-supported version of Nagios, created by the Nagios developers, with several open-source additions bundled with what's now called "Nagios Core" by its vendor, along with an enhanced user interface. In a nutshell, it's the "pro version" of Nagios, sold alongside the free community version, and not really separately notable enough for its own article. I suggest we merge the Nagios XI article here, as has already been attempted by another editor. It's also nearly orphaned, being only linked from here and from Comparison of network monitoring systems, and it's not unknown for the free and "pro" versions from one software article to be listed on two lines in comparison articles. OnionRing (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This logic is again flawed. How can people on Wikipedia think that just because they have a general understanding of something means that they understand what something is. If you have not used these products then you are obviously unaware of the differences and as such think that they are the same. It is not "the pro version" it's an enterprise suite of applications that form an actual piece of software. The comparison to Nagios Core is that Nagios Core is like the patty on a hamburger and Nagios XI is the rest. If this were true, then all the other monitoring projects and commercial products on Wikipedia should be removed because they "are all the same" and that is just silly. If someone doesn't know what "Nagios XI" is, then the page explains what it is, and Nagios Core is just a part of it. The reason it is listed separately than Nagios Core on the monitoring solutions page is because Nagios Core is a separate, free, open-source solution that MANY other monitoring solutions use as it's back-end including multiple solutions that are listed on that monitoring solutions page. Will you remove every solution that uses it? If the product was not named "Nagios XI" you may think of it as a more separate item. Unfortunately that's it's name, and also why there is confusion about what Nagios/Nagios Core/Nagios XI is. Jhom526 (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've used both products for years, so I'm quite aware that Core and XI are two versions of one product: basic and enhanced. It's possible to build XI's functional equivalent with little effort and zero capital cost by combining "Nagios Core" with other open source software, so the real value of XI is the commercial support. And merging two articles on two items of similar software will not result in the deletion of all other monitoring software articles: this is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. OnionRing (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely not possible to build the equivalent of XI with just open source components. It requires full time developers to build and produce it. A good example of exactly what you just said is ELK - elasticsearch, logstash, and kibana are all separate projects that form to create a suite of products. It requires no extra external pieces that hold it all together. XI has portions that were written specifically for it (every single .php file) and is it's own product. I am not against allowing others to give their opinion. This is just mine. Jhom526 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then, let's leave aside the question of how much effort it takes to build a functional equivalent of XI. But you haven't addressed the central question yet: how is XI notable enough for a separate article? OnionRing (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't mind if it's all incorporated into one article or not as long as it's listed with it's own information. However, there is plenty of places such as the list of monitoring software that require it's own article in order to link to it. That being the case, I created one. If determining sources for notability is that there isn't enough secondary sources that talk about it, I would suggest making a quick search and going a few pages in on google. There is a plethora of information, reviews, how-tos, projects incorporating it, integrations, etc that involve Nagios XI specifically that do not come from Nagios Enterprises. Jhom526 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An update on this after some more investigation. If both versions are listed on the Nagios page and separately linked via the comparison chart in Comparison of network monitoring systems then I think these should definitely be merged. I am not sure how to do this, so someone else would have to do that. Jhom526 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That can be done by simply linking the Nagios Core entry to Nagios#Overview or similar, and the Nagios XI entry to Nagios#Nagios XI. OnionRing (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That is easy enough, since it seems like the 3 of us already pretty much agree, will give it a week (WP:Merging as guide) and see if anyone else has an opinion on this. I can come back and merge it then unless someone beats me to it. Jhom526 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Nagios Core 4.0.8 Host Status.png
• Nagios Core 4.0.8.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)