nagios

[Littlefield, Tyler]

Adam,
Frankly, I am getting really tired of listening to you. I've seen 
numerous good posts on this list, some post more good quality 
information and arguments than others, and so far I have yet to see any 
post of yours where you do not resort to insults and totally avoid the 
argument. I understand people have different views, but all you are 
doing is insulting anyone who dares not to agree with you, while making 
yourself look childish and pathetic in the attempt. So: Eeither 1) Shut 
up and quit wasting bandwidth, or 2) Grow up and recognize that your 
being rude is not going to get you anywhere.

If you have different views, that's great, but your resorting to insults 
for lack of anything better is getting really old.

While I do recognize that this isn't much better than what you are 
posting, I hope that you will read it or that something will be done 
about your responses, as they are contributing nothing at all useful to 
any discussions.
On 1/1/2011 4:55 PM, Adam Skutt wrote:
> On Jan 1, 6:21 pm, Robert<sigz... at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Really? How many templating systems does Python have? More than one?
>> Why is that? How many web frameworks does Perl have? More than one? Why
>> is that?
>>
>> Why *was* Nagios forked and re-written in Python?
>>
>> There are too many examples to count.
>>
> You're missing the point: you've yet to provide any sort of argument
> whatsoever.  It's not automatically true that rewriting Nagios in Tcl
> would gain the Tcl community more exposure, nor is it automatically
> true that more exposure is a good or desirable thing.
>
> You first have to show how rewriting Nagios in Tcl would gain them
> more exposure.  Then you have to show that the exposure would be a
> good thing.  Until you've done both, you're arguing with very
> fundamental and conventional engineering wisdom; and you have not
> actually presented an argument just tautologies.
>
> Neither will be easy to prove, by and by large, most people don't give
> a shit what language their applications are written in and rightly so.
>
>> Just gave you a bunch.
> No, you've given me examples of wheel reinvention.  Just because the
> people reinventing the wheel thought it was a good thing doesn't
> actually make it so.  You personally have to present the case as to
> why it is a good thing.
>
>> I want to apologize for my part. We just aren't going to see the same
>> side of this.
> You can apologize, but I don't accept it.  You want to actually
> apologize?  Admit you were wrong and retract, or act like an adult and
> present an actual argument instead of wasting time.
>
> Adam


-- 

Thanks,
Ty