Nagios 2.0!

[Tom DE BLENDE (GCC)]

Andreas Ericsson wrote:

>> It means you were owned. You blame Ethan (you have no idea how bad 
>> mannered "Finally, we get to see the elusive Ethan on the mailing list." 
>
>
> I didn't post that.

You should work on your email formatting then, as it is clearly there.

> The difference is that many contributors are getting increasingly 
> annoyed about the lack of response to patches sent in. It doesn't 
> matter if a patch is committed or not, so long as we know whether the 
> author thinks it's a good idea or not to do so, but it's close to 
> impossible to keep working on other flaws when you have no idea if the 
> patch (or some form of it) will be committed or not.

You know what the real difference is? Ethan is doing all this out of the 
goodness of his heart. Almost all time he spends on this project, is his 
own spare time. You and your company on the other hand, are working on 
Nagios to make money out of it. I know for which I have the most respect.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve by annoying Nagios monuments 
like Ethan and Karl, but by the looks of it, it is not helping your case...


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl