Talk:Zabbix

Reads like an ad

Seems like most of this article can be safely deleted, as it is just regurgitating information from the company's website. A bullet list of the software's features belongs in an advertisement, not an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Smartass (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I think this is no longer true. The article now has a good structure and valuable information. Should be even more extended though. --87.193.163.194 (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Widely known" opinion

An anonymous user has added a paragraph that starts with "On the downside, it is widely known to have too many bugs..." - seems like no sources are provided for such a claim. It is proposed to remove this paragraph. --Richlv (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would advise not to remove this, as a user of Zabbix I do agree that the paragraph is very true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intersol (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

section blanking

an anonymous user has removed a lot of page content with "section blanking". i'd like to ask to refrain from doing so, especially without any discussion. --Richlv (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Colorblindness on the Timeline

The orange/red and green in the version timeline is invisible to me as I'm color blind. It's not the actual colors that are the issue but that they are exactly the same hue in the red-green spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.155.100 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting point - what colours would you suggest ? --Richlv (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

terminology

what dose zabbix mean???

is it an acronym of some kind??

is only windows really only supported by agent??

i am using the aabbix agent for our linux boxes to, i dont know how i could monitor more then ping/open port on linux without it either. Am i mistaken or is there something wrong in the description of it (see also my rollbacked edit of the article)

more sources

These are wikis so I'm not sure if they are considered "reliable" but they are independent of the subject and document the notability of Zabbix:

• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Zabbix
• https://wiki.debian.org/Zabbix

I'm of the opinion, as a staunch inclusionist, that if your software is documented in two major Linux distro wikis as detailed as this is your software is probably notable. go check it out. riffic (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally there are tons of youtube videos that may potentially be seen as a reliable and independent source for asserting notability. I'm not really sure what precedence has to say about including Youtube videos in citations but it's definitely something to not overlook. riffic (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't want this particular citation to get lost. It keeps getting removed from the text, even after being appropriately placed: "17". Ansible: Up and Running, 2nd Edition. O'Reilly Media. July 20, 2017. ISBN 9781491979754. Our monitoring of choice is the well-known open source Zabbix monitoring software, for which we need to install zabbix-agentd on our Windows host. riffic (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

... You placed that reference after "zabbix server," . You cite claims, not nouns. Zabbix server isn't a claim, you don't need to cite that zabbix calls something server. It is entirely unclear how that citation relates to that text 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a more appropriate location, yes. Please wp:agf, I'm trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. It was placed after (now removed) "Zabbix agent" (Special:Diff/1073668083) riffic (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

try to work the other way. What is your source saying specifically? Add that as a sentence somewhere it is appropriate, and put the reference at the end of the sentence. No need to use references that aren't backing up specific content. 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Security vulnerabilities

I added this section to the article. Please use this space here to discuss my changes to the article. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Rsjaffe for deleting it without notice... GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why has this been removed @Rsjaffe, does it violate a rule? Seemed like useful information? --Larcorba (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It was collateral damage when I WP:TNT’d the article. It can be added back if it makes sense in the current article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't usually get sections of this type on software pages on WP. Perhaps as they are so often out of date they have so little encyclopeadic content. I don't know if that is the reason, but you really don't see it much. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, it would take a lot of work to keep this up-to-date and if history is an indicator it seems like not a lot of time is put into maintaining the page.

Zabbix does maintain a page themselves: https://www.zabbix.com/security_advisories Which could be a good primary source to add? Avoiding manual wiki dependency? Larcorba (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Larcorba: I don't know what value outside the needs of the security engineer would be. Possibly as an external link. scope_creep^Talk

The technical Zabbix books have been removed. Keep or re-add?

Now I might be bias as I am the author of some of these. But there used to be a list of Zabbix books (mainly published by Packt) in the further reading section. In the AfD discussion notability was a key word being used, do books like the ones published by Packt not denote notability within the Wikipedia rules. Would it add to the article to include these publications again?--Larcorba (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Larcorba: books can help in showing notability if they are written truly independently from the subject it is about. You have e.g. written books together with authors that do have a close connection, as were the first books that showed up in my search. The more material there is (independent reviews, etc.), the better. The key to notability is what people truly independent of the subject say about the subject (and published that in a reliable source, a blog does not do). Note that there is no problem with some sourcing from a direct source (primary source), but an article needs to have a healthy amount of independent sourcing in order to be kept. (and IMHO some of the independent sourcing presented during the AfD was rather thin, non-critical). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If they had independent reviews that could go in right away. scope_creep^Talk 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: that would be a review of the book, not of the subject I would say. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Yes, I'd say so. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we talking about reviews in the form of independent blog post like pages or the more in the form of the Amazon reviews that a lot of these technical Zabbix books already have? Larcorba (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Not Amazon reviews. Real reviews, and not blogs either. scope_creep^Talk 12:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)