Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | c0m4r's commentslogin

Oh rrdtool is still relevant today. Multiple (if not most of) monioring tools like Cacti, Observium, Munin still use it.

I'm not currently collecting metrics for containers. Though I might add this feature later on.

I think netdata or Grafana with a chosen backend is right for you then. My goal was different, but I'll consider implementing such functionality in the long run. Thank you for your feedback.

At some point, writing these files became a hassle and I felt it was too chaotic, so I gave up on it. Regarding licenses, given that LLMs are using other people's work without their consent anyway, and most of the code produced rn is AI, these licenses are to me really just suggestions. I would treat them as an expression of intent, not a strictly legal document.

It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's take on that, as I suspect their opinion might differ from yours...

A lawyer's opinion will be directly proportional to their fee and will have little to do with reality, because the law hasn't kept up with what's happening right now. If you don't code with AI, you'll be left behind. Everyone is coding with AI, even in places where it's not immediately obvious, there's AI. You open the refrigerator and AI comes out. I don't know how this will be regulated, I'm not an expert in this field, but for now, it is what it is. The most important thing for me is that I don't derive any financial benefit from this and I give attribution where it is due.

No, a lawyers opinion will reflect the law. From a legal standpoint it doesn't matter how you feel about applying a license to your work, it matters what the law says about that. I'm not a lawyer, but my expectation is that the license you choose will bind anyone who chooses to use your software, and in particular will have an effect on companies that wish to use it. That may be fine and exactly what you want, but my point is just that it's not necessarily a whimsical 'statement of intent'.

I feel that too :) With the license, you are right, and I like your stance of "expressed intent".

I've uploaded these prompts to the repo's wiki if anyone else would like to read my broken English.

Temperatures monitoring will be added. Initially, I implemented too many metrics, so during development I limited them to a reasonable level to make them manageable, but I'll be adding more as the project matures. Thanks for the feedback!

Looking forward, thanks!

If you have a moment, I would be grateful if you could create an issue on github. I will then be able to let you know when it's ready and ask you to try it out. Please also let me know which temperatures you'd like to primarily monitor. I assume I'll have to gradually introduce the supported ones, as not all of them can be detected at once.

Sure thing. In my experiences based on using LibreHardwareMonitor [1] on Windows, and Dunnart [2] on Linux, dealing with temperature monitoring is not trivial. But it's not impossible either. For example, in Linux, looking at /sys folder for CPU temperatures, I can often find several entries, of which, some are dead, some are way off, and some are correct, but it is always a hit and miss endeavour. So, reliably monitoring temperatures requires a bit of an algorithm to detect the right source.

[1] https://github.com/LibreHardwareMonitor/LibreHardwareMonitor

[2] https://github.com/warthog618/dunnart


That's true, which is why I assume I'll have to gradually implement this feature. It probably won't be perfect, but it's worth trying :)

Thank you for opening the issue!


Most (all?) temperature monitoring tools on Linux rely on libsensors.

Seems like hardware maintainers never could agree on a standard way of exposing temperature on Linux.


Yeah, that's a pain. Every time I boot up new hardware, I wonder how many readings I'll be able to get this time, and if it's even possible. On one computer, I have practically all the temperatures, voltages, and fan speeds, while on another, I can barely read the CPU temperature alone. Not to mention the need to sometimes compile sketchy drivers from github...

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. It's purely a matter of perspective. I find such restrictions acceptable in free licenses. Besides, as you pointed out, these licenses don't matter anyway, since anyone can use AI and write their own tool :) This choice of license is just my suggestion, or if you prefer, a manifesto that I don't want open source projects to become closed source, that's all.

Initially, yes. However since then I edit it manually, but I agree it still has the AI vibe. I'll work on that!

To be honest, I didn't think about it for too long. I choose licenses based on intuition. I put a lot of work into this tool, I knew it would require a lot of effort, and besides, I created it precisely because someone else turned a similar project into a money-making machine, completely abandoning the original ideals. Therefore, I felt that AGPL, which requires code disclosure and non-profit use, is the way to go.

Yes. Besides AGPL makes a lot of sense for any web based tool, as it keeps the original intent of the GPL.

I don't get the hate/questioning on it either. It's a good balance if you want to prevent straight up cloning/stealing for profit motives while still making it open.


I think that once I get most of the core functions stable, I will also want to add options for exporting metrics.

It is from LLM and some of the security features are overkill - I'm aware of that. These will be optional. I will also try to improve the readability of the README and move more detailed documentation to the wiki. Thanks for your opinions!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: