Talk:Cacti (software)

Just wondering, does it run on Unix or is it a strict Linux application?

Advertisement or encyclopedia?

To me this reads more like advertising copy than encyclopedic text. Rather than simply listing the virtues of this project, shouldn't there be some comparison with other tools for similar purposes? Also, I find it difficult to determine from the text alone what exactly it does — provide some sort of graphical representation of a computer network? Does it mean a graph drawing or a chart? Is "network graphing" a commonly used term of art, and if so should it be linked to an entry on that subject? Ditto "poller" and "graph templating". Re the data acquisition methods, what kind of data is being acquired, from whom? What is the source for the claim that these features are "intuitive" and "easy to use" or for the scalability of the system? —David Eppstein 18:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I found that the existing text was plagiarized directly from the Cacti website, so it's no wonder it read like an advertisement. I've rewritten it. I probably didn't add any depth to the information (as I don't have much experience with Cacti), but I think that solves the copyvio and POV problems. —Adam Atlas 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability

• Google search for "Cacti Group": just 92 unique hits, many unrelated
• Google News search for "Cacti Group": nothing
• Google News Archives search for "Cacti Group": nothing related to this software

If there are sources that meet the requirements of our Notability Guideline, I did not find them. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there aren't many results for "Cacti Group". There isn't such a thing other than as a general description for the handful of people who work on Cacti in their spare time. Cacti is a free tool. There's no company behind it. It's probably more appropriate to list the individual authors, or "various" in the infobox. I'll make that change. Also, popularity on Google search results is not a measure of notability. There are things that exist, or have existed, that are notable and are not easily found (if at all) via a search engine. Finally, this article already survived a AFD which established its notability. Please see the notice and archived discussion at the top of this page. --Mperry 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The status of this software as being notable is still in question. Notability is not established by an AfD result, as suggested by Mperry above. The article mentions two networking books from reliable publishing houses, but do these books really give the significant coverage of this software required to assert notability? —gorgan_almighty 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is hard to find

When seaching for Cacti, it redirects to Cactus, and the disambiguation page for Cactus does not list this software. Therefore it can only be found when adding "(software)" to the search term, or using autocomplete. I would add it to the Cactus (disambiguation) page, but I do not know how to. Jason404 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added this article to the disambiguation page. Lostraven (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Major update and removal of template

I've made a major update to the page given the two problem templates ("no footnotes" and "Primary sources") that were on it. I believe the update satisfies the issues addressed by those two templates, and thus I removed them. If there are still problems with it, let me know. Lostraven (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)