GPL'd thoughts - Latest comments

In response to: Making Nagios even more awesome

Andreas Ericsson [Member] — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:52:57 +0000

Hi Tom! Long time indeed.

Sadly, I haven't had time to work on the certificate authentication stuff :-/

We're doing a release to our customers tomorrow. After that I'm hoping to be able to hack in some more features into merlin, although unless our customers or the community requests SSL-certification specifically, I fear it'll be hard to get the boss to prioritize it. We'll see how it goes :-)

In response to: Making Nagios even more awesome

Tom Welsh [Visitor] — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:36:03 +0000

Hey Andreas, Long time no speak. I was wondering if you ever got the cerfificated server stuff working?

In response to: The future of Nagios

Julian Hein [Visitor] — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:09:47 +0000

Hi everyone,

as there is a lot of speculation in this post and in the comments, I would like to clarify some things, or at least the way we think about it.

First, there is indeed an issue with the trademark. We registered the trademark in Germany years ago, because it was not registered, just to cover ourself from people registering trademarks of open source projects and then requesting money from companies marketing services related to the project. This has happened a lot in Germany. When we recieved it, we put it in a folder and never used it for anything. We are currently talking to Ethan about transfering the trademark to him, which we are happy to do.

Second and much more important: Icinga is not a NETWAYS fork: We did not initiate or instigate the fork. We were approached by community members and asked if we would support it. We also do not control it in any way. 3 members of our staff are working part time for Icinga, but that is it. There are much more people outside of NETWAYS involved.

The fork was done, because we all thought that Nagios is too important for us to see it slowly dying. And that is what has happend at least over the last two years. Not a single new feature, the long talked about webinterface did not make any progress and NDO kept being totally buggy and messed up for over 2 years. While other systems like Zenoss or Zabbix were going full speed ahead. And we all believed that we all had tried to talk to Ethan often enough about this issues before and we also had tried to offer concret help, but nothing happend.

So we (and that includes 50% of the Nagios community advisory board) decided to do the fork to revitalize Nagios. We consider Icinga to be kind of a friendly fork: We do not want to split the Nagios community, but consider Icinga still being part of it. Also there there is no need for us to win any kind of competition or defeat Nagios in any way. We even do not really want to be responsible for developing an alternative monitoring product or managing a project of that size. If Nagios development gains speed again and that proves to be steady and sound, we will be more than happy to stopp working an Icinga, merge back into Nagios or whatever makes sense at that time. This would in no way be a loss of face. The opposite is true, because than we would have reached our goal. At the moment everything looks good and even Ethan seems to be happy with the new energy that the project has.

Regards,
Julian

In response to: The future of Nagios

Andreas Ericsson [Member] — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:06:12 +0000

@John E. Vincent: Regarding your test-theory, I agree, but it's not as simple as that anymore. It's turned political. Netways can't cancel their fork without losing face. They really have put some effort into the fork, but most of the effort has been spent renaming things from Nagios to Icinga. We'll see how it goes.

@Kevin: Long time indeed! Nice to hear from you again :-)
Yes, I'm as active as time permits in the git sphere, but at the moment there isn't much time to spare for work on it. That's quite sad, as I'm the libgit2 co-maintainer since a couple of weeks.

nagios.git won't be hosted on github, but on git.nagios.org or code.nagios.org. We'd like to have full control of the update and post-receive hooks in order to share access to the repository more easily and automate build- and release-processes. We'll switch to using git after Nagios 3.2.0 is released, as Ethan feels he needs some patch-free time in order to grok properly how it works.

In response to: The future of Nagios

Kevin Menard [Visitor] — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:09:54 +0000

Hey Andreas,

Long time, no speak. I've seen you active on the git user list. If you could coerce Ethan into hosting Nagios on GitHub, that'd be awesome. As you know, it makes it considerably easier to produce a patch, too.

In response to: Object oriented configuration

john brightman [Visitor] — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:15:58 +0000

HI
looks very interesting!
bookmarked your blog.
john brightman

In response to: Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Nagios pre-3.0.6

john brightman [Visitor] — Sun, 24 May 2009 12:03:32 +0000

HI
looks very interesting!
bookmarked your blog.
john brightman

In response to: The future of Nagios

John E. Vincent [Visitor] — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:30:59 +0000

I had the same thoughts about NETWAYS but didn't want to start a conspiracy theory.

I think the true test would be this:

If Nagios proper were to address the "concerns" from Icinga would they gladly cancel the fork? If the concern is truly based around the community and not what's best for NETWAYS, it seems to me that if there's a roadmap on the Nagios side to address those concerns that the need for the fork is pointless.