[savalione]

Is there any meaningful reason to add the project structure to the README, and add a copyright symbol to every mention of Linux? I'm not quite sure by what standards it's considered to be lightweight, but it may be useful for homelab owners.

Anyway, Zabbix still looks like a better solution by any metric.

[c0m4r]

I got your point. The project structure remains from the initial phase of building the tool. I think I'll eventually remove it or put it on the wiki or somewhere else. My excessive attachment to copyright probably stems from the fact that years ago, when I wrote my own websites and articles, people often simply copied them and signed them as their own. The Linux Foundation website has attribution instructions that ask for the use of the ® symbol; I simply followed this instruction, but I agree that it's probably an exaggeration on my part. Considering what this tool does, I personally think it's lightweight in terms of both binary size, execution times, and dashboard performance. But I agree that's debatable.

[dqv]

In fact, you followed the instructions exactly to spec https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/the-linux-mark

[sirpilade]

I think that having the « How it works » section in the README makes the aim of the project a lot easier to understand

[sneak]

I like having tons of docs in the README, vertical screen space is cheap.

[mervz]

The README was AI generated, that's why.

[ramon156]

Ironically, Zabbix front page also has some AI smells. Doesn't really matter regarding the actual tool, which is indeed more battle-tested

[c0m4r]

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