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
Looks great, that is not a solusvm competitor though, it is 600% more expensive and Saas.
This is incorrect, it is $16/Mo/node for a solusvm alternative (machines bigger than 64gb ram). Our complete edition is an alternative to onapp - in order to offer HA with onapp the minimum cost is $1200/Mo (taken from onapp website 2015, currently onapp requires you to contact them for a quote).
Yep sure, I am just saying that you are in no way enticing any of the market share away from solusvm with this, so you are essentially an OnAPP competitor.
Just because our base cost for the minified edition is a little bit higher than solus for larger machines doesn't mean we won't be offering promotions when our migration tools are ready (allowing you to install the platform over your current solus setup) with price matches - meaning you don't have to pay more than your current deployment when migrating.
Just to note, the SaaS thing is temporary till we can figuire out a way to block the client from modifying the front end UI and removing our branding (since the minified edition is in no way white label)
Seems good.
Great, well if that's the case it sounds like a winner, I dont mind doubling my solusvm prices to get a functional panel that has active support and development, I tend to stay away from little 32GB nodes though so your price per node for me sky rockets compared to solusvm.
haha, no updates at all or meaningful support for 2 years and you blame the holiday period? haha, I hope you hung your head and shook it a bit after posting this.
Yeah we understand that bigger providers might be utilizing more sophisticated hypervisors, and was one of the reasons we decided to offer a pricing model that suits the smaller providers that don't get much of a break these days.
None the less, our complete edition will be much more affordable and just as effective than OnApp (if not more) - which is something we can guarantee
The pricing model you also see is in place for monthly, no minimum costs - where-as bigger providers who are ready to sign contracts will be able to achieve lower costs.
Our goals also include ensuring all our features are beneficial to the providers marketing.
For example, our complete edition allows you to compete in the following industries:
Infrastructure-as-a-Service - eg:
Containers-as-a-Service - eg:
Platform-as-a-Service - eg:
Storage-as-a-Service - eg:
Fair point. With the piles of duct tape in their codebase, I'd say that any kind of feature addition (let alone an architectural overhaul) is going to be a ton of work. And that's assuming that they don't just write spaghetti code again...
That's a legal problem, not a technical problem. You cannot prevent it by technical means. Just make it not allowed under your terms, problem solved.
Might take that approach, thanks for your suggestion.
You could also take the WHMCS approach, just tag $2 p/month on the license for an unbranded option, its not like it 'really' affects you, the end users are not the ones paying your license fee.
The backlink is there for two reasons:
Well, I don't care really, I don't use unbranded whmcs, if you want to levy free advertising from your paying customers that is up to you but I think the revenue from all the unbranded license extras would out weigh the benefit if you went that way.
Competitors will know anyway, it's not like there is a lot of choice, modify the hell out of whmcs or solusvm, I will still know what it is in 5 seconds.
Yes, but that's because WHMCS & SolusVM are already well known. VirtEngine on the other hand is a new player so we have a larger interest in Backlinks.
I have to say that that's a much better response than I usually get to this kind of suggestion - most people just outright dismiss it, because they're already set on solving it in a technical manner no matter what.
I just wanted to explicitly point that out - it's a good sign that you're taking suggestions seriously, and it's something I'd like to see more developers/providers do
I've been talking daily to @DETio and I assure he knows what his team is doing... And they're doing it pretty well.
I'm excited for the release!
There is no security through obscurity. Trying to block something will only make some more determined to do it just to beat it and stick it to you. You are always going to have users do things you did not intend for them to do.
Also IMHO, if you have to rely on paying customers for free SEO/advertising there's something wrong there. Charge more if its a financial issue, but that should not be in your business model.
SolusVM Code is terribly formatted.
I've got a quite a few files decrypted, jesus the way they use syntaxs.
I stick with Virtualizor anyday now over Solus.
I heard they picked up HyperVM and tried to build on top of it.
Although your responses here are quite professional and open to suggestions, this attitude as a company to use paid customers as advertisers even if they will not be used that way (e.g. pay to get a white labeled panel) is poor... Maybe you should think again this model. Valid companies should spend money to advertise their product, there are a lot of ways to do that: on line banners, free credits for using the product, generous discounts to new customers, participating to technical forums etc.
Unfortunately it's a proven and successful marketing strategy that will help us get the platform out.
that is why paying people refuse to be guinea pigs and won't buy/use your product then lol.
Sure, we understand that some providers want white-label. That's why in that scenario the provider needs to be willing to pay for the Complete edition which allows the provider to remove the backlink within the settings.
You have previous experience with advertising/marketing? I want proof of success on your "strategy." Also, stick a notification bar on your site saying "we're using you," and we'll be good.
Regarding proof, I can't give you that unfortunately but I've witnessed companies grow using it. For example WHMCS, when I was still new to the hosting industry I was introduced to WHMCS via Back-links from other hosting providers my self.
The backlink is very small and unobtrusive sitting in the footer, the provider has nothing to worry about - none of VirtEngine's products compete with the Hosting Industry. We are however able to offer the following to the end-user:
SMB / Individual:
Enterprise:
Where-as the above private cloud products can be directly offered by the Hosting Provider in the complete edition, as you can see in the feature comparison there is 'Virtual Private Cloud' - basically installing a private cloud for your client on dedicated servers.
Jesus Christ!
Det.io: page not found
Was just updating it :-) Should work now.
Recently we have been facing too many issues with solusvm on ovh based server. While adding additional ips on centos7 template the ips were not getting added. So after discussing with solusvm they had asked to use the onapp based centos template which worked fine. And the second issue was on centos 6 where secondary IPs were not getting ping. Finally had to add modify some files after discussing with the solusvm team.