4 ms·

Seems that, unlike Sidekiq, this starts as a heavily commercial solution, and it shows. Landing page has a pretty big "Buy Pro" call-to-action button. Features

by pitr 12y ago

Seems that, unlike Sidekiq, this starts as a heavily commercial solution, and it shows. Landing page has a pretty big "Buy Pro" call-to-action button. Features like support for notifying slack/etc I'd expect to be present in a free version. Open source feels more of an afterthought. I don't feel comfortable using even the free version, simply because if the project fails financially, it is likely to be dropped altogether.

zrail 12y ago
The fact that there is a commercial version is proof that mperham wants and expects the project to continue sustainably. That said, the open source version provides more than Monit in a better, easier to deploy package. I think that right there is incentive enough to use it. Plus, if you want to fork it and add your own specific notification channels, here's the source: https://github.com/mperham/inspeqtor/blob/891517cc0edc6dda8d5faa2f6e0bd8ef03a4f27c/actions.go https://github.com/mperham/inspeqtor/blob/891517cc0edc6dda8d...
- pitr 12y ago
  I agree that ease of use is the strongest reason to use this. Just because mperham wants the project to be sustainable doesn't guarantee it. However, if sidekiq Pro would have failed, Sidekiq would easily survive simply because of huge open source community. With inspeqtor it's not so clear. "Route alerts to your team chat room" is listed as a Pro feature. Any PR implementing it is unlikely to be merge in. And creating a separate fork for a relatively small feature should not really be an answer to an open-source project.
  - zrail 12y ago
    See mperham's reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401372
mperham 12y ago
Long story short: I'm new to Go and wasn't sure how to manage the codebases for both an OSS product and commercial product together so I built the two in tandem to work out the kinks. Since the commercial product was already written, why not sell it from day one? The OSS product is targeted to small teams, individuals and hobbyists. Pro was designed to target larger teams and the features they would need.

by pitr 12y ago

zrail 12y ago

The fact that there is a commercial version is proof that mperham wants and expects the project to continue sustainably. That said, the open source version provides more than Monit in a better, easier to deploy package. I think that right there is incentive enough to use it. Plus, if you want to fork it and add your own specific notification channels, here's the source: https://github.com/mperham/inspeqtor/blob/891517cc0edc6dda8d5faa2f6e0bd8ef03a4f27c/actions.go https://github.com/mperham/inspeqtor/blob/891517cc0edc6dda8d...

pitr 12y ago
I agree that ease of use is the strongest reason to use this. Just because mperham wants the project to be sustainable doesn't guarantee it. However, if sidekiq Pro would have failed, Sidekiq would easily survive simply because of huge open source community. With inspeqtor it's not so clear. "Route alerts to your team chat room" is listed as a Pro feature. Any PR implementing it is unlikely to be merge in. And creating a separate fork for a relatively small feature should not really be an answer to an open-source project.
- zrail 12y ago
  See mperham's reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401372

mperham 12y ago

Long story short: I'm new to Go and wasn't sure how to manage the codebases for both an OSS product and commercial product together so I built the two in tandem to work out the kinks. Since the commercial product was already written, why not sell it from day one? The OSS product is targeted to small teams, individuals and hobbyists. Pro was designed to target larger teams and the features they would need.