On 09/17/2009 07:07 AM, Christoph Maser wrote: > So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the centos-wiki > because the official nagios docs suck? Read my last email in reply to Max. Things are not really that black and white. Nagios docs suck. Their developers have made it a point to go out of their way to make content and config process's obscure. The reason why its still used as widely as it is - is because of the alternative support mechanisms that exist, and a bit of luck. On a more general front - are we sure that all docs on the Nagios website are relevant to CentOS and as specific packages age, will continue to do so ? eg. CentOS-3, is a much used platform - are the docs they host at nagios still relevant ? are the latest / greatest builds still supported on the C3 platform ? Irrespective of what the answers to those questions might be - consider the same question on a more generic level. Do all upstreams everywhere always have relevant content and will help with any version from anywhere ? On the completely extreme ( and I say this here only to prove a point, I am sure you will understand that ), would you argue that the redhat docs are also a waste of effort and they should - as well, just upstream much of what they do ? if not all. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
