Re: [Envolution-devel] [Re: Hosting questions]

[Scott K. <sc...@ki...>]

On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 13:07, Sascha Endlicher wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am Sascha Endlicher of http://www.ezoshosting.com, not ezhosting.com.
> It's the little details that you try to use to make a point, but they
> are just not right.
> Two statements on two different issues.
> 

Yeah I must have mispelled it. We are talking about your company though.

> a) We turned away a potential customer a few days ago who was asking
> about hosting a large Envolution based website. Large as in "terms of
> server load it would have caused". If by those descriptions the site
> would have been a PostNuke site or a PHPNuke site the customer would
> have gotten the same answer. Same thing for Xaraya.
> 

Then why did you feel inclined to state this FUD,

<quote>
"The problem in this case is certainly not the amount of visitors or the
bandwidth. Envolution is poorly programmed and uses way too many server
resources. Unfortunately it also doesn't use any intelligent caching
techniques. As an example: We could host approximately 50 to 100 times
more HTML based sites than your site at the same bandwidth."
</quote>

Sascha this quote specifically states it wasn't about large sites or
bandwidth. The quote specifically states that "Envolution is poorly
programmed and uses way too many resources".

You surely must realize that under Envolution's hood is a postnuke code
base! The only primary difference being the addition of Encompass which
does have a caching system which the quote says we don't have!

Furthermore Encompass typically uses no more resources than what Xaraya,
Postnuke, Xoops, and any other CMS uses...sure there are minor
differences depending on the number of modules and the forum software
used but generally the difference if any would be negligable.

So again...if what you say is true then why tell people the stuff quoted
above? Can't say one thing then turn around and say something else when
it's there in black and white to be read!

> Envolution, PostNuke and PHPNuke are great tools to administer a
> website, but they currently "have a lot of room for improvement" when it
> comes to heavy traffic sites. Notice that the customer did not ask about
> PostNuke hosting. I can tell you about people who are just as desperate
> because they can't find cheap PostNuke hosting with their 30 000plus
> visitors a day sites. We are honest enough to say that we won't host
> them, other hosts take their money and shut them down.
> 

So why then Sascha did you specifically say, "The problem in this case
is certainly not the amount of visitors or the bandwidth"?

Come on do you seriously expect us to believe you don't know that server
resources are directly proportional to the number of visitors accessing
a website using scripting languages such as PHP?? Thats a pretty bold
statement...you must think Envolution developers have no clue about
server resources!!!!!!!!!!! 

> Xaraya has the potential to become a great tool, but at present it
> isn't. I personally believe the laid out blocklayout is excellent and it
> is great to work with, because I personally come from an XML / XSLT
> background, but Xaraya has other bugs that make it impossible to use it
> on production sites yet. Plus, the number of SQL calls it currently
> generates are horrible. It is what I call a "server killer".
> 

Yes it does..as does
Postnuke...Xoops...PHP-Nuke.....Drupal...WebGUI.....Slashcode....and
even good old Envolution!

> So, don't make this a "he is with Xaraya" thing.
> 

I didn't. I was merely drawing the connection between you and the former
postnuke develoeprs who left to form Xaraya. That bunch of people which
includes you are constantly putting down Envolution created code....this
issue is just another example of it.

> You might not know that, but we had actually advertised hosting for
> Envolution on google and Overture in the past, shortly after the
> Envolution fork, but there was not much interest by surfers and
> potential clients.

I sure hope it doesn't turn out that the lack of interest was due to
comments such as what you made to JFK....if I contacted a webhost and
they told me not to use "insert cms name here" because it was "poorly
programmed" I might be inclined to think that the less technically
inclined would believe you knew what you were talking about. 

> People want PostNuke like crazy, although I see a lot of bad things
> about PostNuke, one of them is the fact that it makes a bad use of
> system resources.
> 
> Have you ever tried to host a site with 30 000 unique visitors an hour
> running PostNuke in a virtual hosting environment?

Does it matter? We are not talking about real server resource issues. If
this was all about server resource issues you wouldn't have stated, "The
problem in this case is certainly not the amount of visitors or the
bandwidth" because we both know that bandwidth and simultaneous visitors
DO have an impact on server resources...the problem lay in your next
comment, "Envolution is poorly programmed and uses way too many server
resources." Now let's keep that in context....all over your website we
see Xoops, PHP-Nuke, Postnuke, and Xaraya...yet no mention of their
server resource handling! Seems to me you specifically omit Envolution
and specifically take the chance to tell prospective customers about
your perception that Envolution is "poorly programmed" while not telling
them that all nuke CMS's are about the same in that regard.

> We tried and failed. The next time he had that many visitors we put him
> on a dedicated server for free. We didn't end up loosing the customer,
> but he switched to Virtuanews, which uses really good caching.
> 

Maybe it has something to do with the number of clients you pack into
one machine when virtual hosting...who knows...who cares....my point and
the only point I am attempting to address is your specific remark to a
potential client that Envolution is "poorly programmed". The client can
choose whatever software that fits his/her needs...we activly promote
that

> Postnuke even gets cranky at 30 000+ visitors a day and you can't make a
> profit with it, not with our cheap prices at least.

So shall we tell the Postnuke community that you believe that using
Postnuke is not profitable? They would eat you alive and I would have to
agree with them on it.

> When Kevin Mitnick was free to use the internet again and his
> girlfriend's website, who is hosted with us, got mentioned on several TV
> stations within a few hours, she had 30 000 visitors per hour and the
> server load was not an issue at all. She used Movable Type. Movable Type
> generated static HTML pages that are only updated and regenerated when
> someone posts a comment.

So you want to compare static HTML pages with Dynamic ones? It doesn't
take a genious to know static pages will be faster and less resource
intensive...but then again it doesn't offer the convenience of a CMS
application with ancillary applications which are what module are.

> This is what I call excellent in terms of server load! Plus, you can
> burn the HTML pages on a CD. That's another killer feature for Content
> Management IMHO.
> 

How many clients besides his girlfriends are on the same server (as if
this was relevant to the issue at hand)?

> b) Scott Kindley asked in an email if he could host some envolution
> sites with us. He could have asked for static html page hosting, and he
> would have had the same reply.
> I don't personally like him, but I saw no need to tell him that again. I
> just answered 
> "Scott,
> 

You have got to be kidding me! I also already told you I was probing for
information to find out what you beef was with Envolution. I never
intended to host with you or any company I host my own stuff. But since
you are so quick to point out how much you don't like me perhaps it
isn't so hard to figure out you don't like Envolution because of who I
am as well! Which is what I said in the first damn place...it isn't
about resources it's about politics.


> Do I have bad feelings towards Envolution?
> No, not at all. I am more than willing to even extend the "we sponsor
> active postnuke developers" offer to "we sponsor active Envolution
> developers".
> 

Fair enough then....put up a sponsership of Envolution and retract your
false alligations that Envolution is "poorly programmed" ands top lying
to people by giving innaccurate misleading information about Envolution
and I'll shutup.

> Do I have issues with Scott Kindley? Yes, I do.

Get in line pal...many people do. I don't care about who likes or
dislikes me...I tell the truth and I believe in fair and honest open
source development. All along our past Sascha you and folks like you
tend to blame me for things I had no control over...I didn't lie to
postnuke users and developers....Cox and crew did......didn't close
development of postnuke to include only those approved of by Cox and
crew...they did....I didn't published falsified benchmarks in an effort
to convince people Blocklayout was superior....Cox's boys did.

Now let's talk about what Zoom did do just for the record......

Zoom raised questions about falsified benchmarks.....
Zoom complained loudly when Cox and crew ignored the end users of
postnuke and developers of third party blocks, modules, and themes.
Zoom exposed emails and IRC logs given to him by insiders at the former
postnuke showing the community how Cox and crew lied and had motives to
create a commercial product and lock out community contributors.
Zoom complained when Cox and crew marginalized non-english speaking
communities by ignoring their requests for docs and language support for
thier languages.
Zoom cofounded Envolution to give ALL community members a voice in
development not just a chosen few!
Zoom activly talked with both Harry Zink and Vanessa Hackinson about
reuniting PostNuke and Envolution into one solid community after it was
clear the dishonest people were no longer part of PostNuke...(BTW both
Harry and Vanessa refuse to reunite the two commnities into a single
nuke community. Guess the end users still dont matter at postnuke
considering development is once again closed and jeld behind moderateed
lists again)


> If Scott Kindley wants to make my personal dislike a dislike against
> Envolution, he will fail.

Nope. I don't have to make anything....you made the case for me with
your quote.

> Scott Kindley is not the Envolution project I believe, and my lengthy
> examples should have cleared up this matter.

You got that right I am not Envolution. I am only a part of it. The
community is what makes Envolution so great. And I don't beleive this
community wants people like you to run it down with false statements and
disparaging remarks about it either. So I'll envolution community
members will decide for themsleves whether or not your comments about
Envolution being "poorly programmed" is a pout down or not. I for one
believe it is.

Zoom