New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@24khost - That's the difference between you and me... I'm not out to squeeze every last drop out of the people who use my product, I'll let the community take care of that.
bcrypt silently cuts off passwords longer than X characters, and this is virtually undocumented. Not exactly a good indication of a trustable algorithm if such important security issues exist completely silently.
EDIT: You may want to carefully read the documentation for crypt(), and run some benchmarks. I get the idea you are under the impression that the hashing consists of one single SHA256 hash, which is not the case.
Where?
Ah, the usual question. Why would one use X over Y? Well, maybe because X is somehow more convenient to use.
Let's not forget that every single "mature and tested framework" started out without anyone using it.
Still considering how to actually include this in the framework itself without breaking naming conventions of projects that would be using it.
Except that still won't protect your code, so it won't help you.
Clearly fighting against copyright infringement is entirely pointless? Why not give up then, and pick a solution that doesn't inconvenience the legitimately paying users?
This sounds like a good project and $10,000 to get an open source web hosting panel out there is a drop in the ocean
I've came across most control panels mentioned including zpanel, to be frank most where pure shit, means I can never depend on them, or are too bulky and doesn't seem like a project that was created to be supported and updated regularly - AVOIDED! Sometimes doesn't even seem like a commercial project but just a local "patch" that was created for a specific need somewhere, and is almost feature less!
IMO for updating, making it worthy, a community supported, considering of requests etc, it's what exactly needed! Or at least what I was looking for. And I don't see something wrong that they've "created something" initially. There's a huuuge amount of work even if for those small things, features, and fixes, that needs to be done.. or otherwise it's another useless undependable piece of thing
To be frank I instantly loved the file manager, as I felt they think as I do, and I somewhat liked the interface. Also there is some simplification approach that I've already loved, in both PHP choice and design. I think it CAN be great, and can "fill a necessary gap"..
What services will the master/slave functionality apply to? Web, mysql, dns?
@twain - In essence you would be able to manage multiple servers from one master server. So for large web hosts you would have one central login location as opposed to 50 servers. We also intend to setup the ability to create a cloud infrastructure where two systems mirror each other by using linuxHA.
Ok understood. Perhaps you might explore having the ability for secondary dns slave/mirror servers etc. The way ispconfig does that works quite nicely...
We wanted to say thank you to everyone who has chosen to back us thus far. To date we've gotten a bit short of $500 towards our goal. We still have 20 days left so we hope to reach our goal in time.
Everyone should support this project. I don't understand those who didn't
Well I'd like to thank those of you who tried to back the project. As of now the project did not meet the goal, but we will continue working on the project. I will most likely begin obfuscating and selling neon when it is ready as opposed to offering it open source. As the community has proven most people would rather pay $$ monthly than pay $25 one time. Thank you anyway...
I certainly will be, on the 5th
Oops, posted in response to the pie
@jarland - Unfortunately the project did not make it's goal.
Well I think you'd do well to offer it at a monthly fee. It would certainly interest me.
@BlueVM, personally I wouldn't pay monthly fees for it if it only supported debian.
you should have used Indiegogo if you wanted to keep funds if it didn't get funded
@BlueVM How far off was it?
This makes me sad... Too bad the goal was not met, it was an interesting idea...
@concerto49 - it was 25% of the way there.
@curtisg - It would have "eventually" (IE within a few months of release) supported Centos, Ubuntu and Fedora. I picked one OS to launch with, not one OS to support.
@gubbyte - While we could have done that the general idea was to see if an open source project could get the level of funding to build something quickly, not just to collect donations.
@revnja - I'll still be developing on it, just not at the rate I'd have hoped and possibly not open source.
@BlueVM - And I will still be following the project. Are you planning to take donations along the way, or just wait until it is finished to sell it?
You probably would have got more funding if it was proprietary from the start. The idea of donating to a kickstarter for an open source project isn't very appealing.
Exactly, was what I was saying at the start, but then got bashed. I have nothing against this project or how it was run, but simply that this method of kickstarter would fail.
@revnja - I haven't decided yet. TBH I doubt I'd get many anyway...
@gubbyte - In reality wouldn't you have preferred an open source panel though?
@concerto49 - What is the deal with people assuming proprietary = better? Just wondering...
I'd like to say we could put up a blog, collect $1k - $2k worth of donations and try to push out a version 1.0 by the end of the year (obviously have a usable version by July) but IDK if we could get $2k worth of donations though...
That's not the point. Like I said, if it's open source ask for donations. The even better way to do it is: if it meets this goal we'll open source the project. You do not have it open source and say it will be completed regardless and ask for funds to make it faster. Honestly, then no one will care. If you say no funds = no panel then people start to click.
I wouldn't pay monthly for a panel. I hate paying for WHM/cPanel. And even if it was $1/month, in many cases people would be paying more for Neon than the actual monthly cost of their lowendbox.
Though my motives are partly self serving, I'd still recommend the open source w/ donations route. If it's really as good as you let on, and can really give the old incumbents a run for their money, you will have many, many users flocking to it. Once you reach critical mass you should make a pretty penny from donations. Heck if I tried it out and it does what I want and works well, I'd consider dropping a $15 or so donation, instead of getting yet another LEB that will sit idle
Yes, of course. You could develop it open source, but asking for money to develop it isn't right. Most open source projects have a donate button somewhere on their site to get their funding. They didn't start up with Kickstarter.
Everything is already said, I was not member of LET when I saw this project, I was one of the backer but looks like it din make it.
I am coder by profession and I know if you want people to buy something from you , you have give lot of extra effort to make that thing / code appealing and useful at sametime and if you are offering for free then there is no such pressure, you give what you like and you work on it whenever you want.. may be this is the reason @BlueVM wanted to go for OpenSource route. I have been part of few opensource projects and what I have noticed that almost all of them started as simple one man project, he came up with something small yet useful but because it was open-source, people contributed to it (but main author always remained the lead) and it became big.. I just don't have enough knowledge at system level which may require to build up such CP.
Why don't you just keep it building for your own business and while making it opensource, that way you will have good product which will eventually get attention.. rest will be automatic.
I feel sad about this. Neon was branded as "all open" from the beginning and I liked the idea. In my opinion it would be so much nicer to have the product developed in the open and make contributions from the community (and code security review by others, etc.) possible. Not to mention the absence of licensing hassle for small-time users like me.
I was one of the first (small) backers at Kickstarter, by the way.
Good luck anyway!