Here's a scoop:

(DSM) and Control Panel:
Java Servlet Zone and ServletManager
DSM Billing Enhancements
POP/Auth Email
Web Mail Check / User Panel
Billing Automation
Perl upgrade to 5.6.0.

Originally posted by DynastyHost
Here's a scoop:

(DSM) and Control Panel:
Java Servlet Zone and ServletManager
DSM Billing Enhancements
POP/Auth Email
Web Mail Check / User Panel
Billing Automation
Perl upgrade to 5.6.0.


does this mean a client would be able to access their mail via POP and webmail? *hopes really hard*

Originally posted by Dana
does this mean a client would be able to access their mail via POP and webmail? *hopes really hard*
Apparently. An Alabanza rep told me a month or so ago that this was coming. From today's announcement:

"Web Mail Check is an email access program that provides a convenient way to
manage email and works in conjunction with the Mail Manager tool in the
Control Panel. Clients can offer web email through domains on their
servers. Web Mail check has many different user-friendly email options
including the following: logout, delete selected mail, check new mail,
compose mail, options and addresses. Clients can read and send mail from
any computer that is connected to a web browser (Netscape Navigator,
Internet Explorer, AOL) and a POP3-compliant mailbox."

Sure looks like their control panel is really coming along, sure wish they would release it to the general public :) but then they wouldt have a niche.... OH WELL i will continue my search for the PERFECT control panel. Is there such a thing :)

Originally posted by Dana
does this mean a client would be able to access their mail via POP and webmail? *hopes really hard*


The way I look at Alabanza and their web control panel is this. They remind me of Macintosh back in the day. They were top dog for awile because they had the software people wanted. Then came a long a little company called microsoft. Their software matched up to Macintosh's pretty good but it didn't blow it away enough to make themselves the biggest OS provider in the world. How you ask did Microsoft acomplish becoming the bigest OS provider in the world? Unlike macintosh who said that nobody can release a copy of our OS on a PC other than us, Microsoft said let's let everyone use it. We will just charge them for the usage.

So the moral of the story is. I am willing to bet close to 50% if not more of Alabanza'a hosts would go somewhere else to lease their servers if they had another control panel that was just as good and had all of the features that Alabanza's did. Alabanza knows this so they are thinking like Steve Jobs did. I will keep it to myself and they will have to come to me for this kind of software. But sooner or later a company will come out with a control panel as good or better than Alabanza's and then Alabanza will start to see a sharp drop off in their sales.

So f anyone from Alabanza reads this. Tell your CEO that unless he wants to almost bankrupt the company as Jobs almost did. You need to license out your control panel or one of your competitors will beat you to the punch.

[Edited by JeremyL on 09-20-2000 at 08:32 PM]

woohoo!

FYI JermeyL, VDI's control panel is more advanced than Alabanza's by far, espically for the manager end, the ONLY thing it lacks (which they are working on) to blow alabanza out of the water is the billing and auotmatic setup.

But by far it has more back end *real* management features than Alabanza ever dreamed of :).

That is not the only reason i chose Alabanza, the reason was that support is included in the price, as well as the IP numbers, we get 500-1000 IP's included in every server we lease. Those can add up to alot of maoney with other hosts.


I am also a day trader, and if Alabanza IPO'd, i'd be a buyer...look at Verio hosting, the prices are outrageous and their stock is $60/share and holding steady.

Hi Greg

As a daytrader myself I must tell you, a Alabanza IPO would be very attractive, and one that I would go long on it ;)

50%, eh, as if a control panel is the only reason to choose any provider? Glad you're not doing the handicapping for the weekend football games that I pick, because I'd surely tank if you did. It takes more than pretty pictures to make a decent provider. I haven't found another provider that gives the things that Alabanza does, and even though I get torqued about some things, they are far and away better, feature-wise, than anyone else we checked before leasing from them.

Oh well, i guess when your on the top of the hosting heap, alot of the "others" have to point out every little imperfection...but we Alabanzanians know the truth :)

Originally posted by Greg
Oh well, i guess when your on the top of the hosting heap, alot of the "others" have to point out every little imperfection...but we Alabanzanians know the truth :)

Hey alabanzanians.com is available.. :) Go register it :).. and make a web site about it for everyoen to discuss :)

Actually, Alabanzan is more correct.

BTW, alabanzan.com and alabanzans.com are available. The race is on!! :-)

(My smilies never work!!)

Originally posted by Annette
50%, eh, as if a control panel is the only reason to choose any provider? Glad you're not doing the handicapping for the weekend football games that I pick, because I'd surely tank if you did. It takes more than pretty pictures to make a decent provider.

I would have to disagree. If you take away their control panel and automation software (I am talking about both when I say control panel. Maybe I should say DMS instead of control panel.) all you have is a managed server provider who is not willing to be flexible. They only offer 2 hardware cofigurations and will not compromise. The same holds true for the server configuration. No amount of money can get them to add beyond the original config. So if you do take away the DMS/Control Panel what do you have? Not much.

Now don't get me wrong. Alabanza is the best choice out there for now. Between their top notch NOC (which means alot to me) and their DMS/Control Panel I believe they are the only choice out there for me. What I am saying is that someday someone will offer a DMS/Control Panel out there that is better than Alabanzas and then alot of their customers or new customers will look for managed servers that offer mor flexibility.

Originally posted by Greg
That is not the only reason i chose Alabanza, the reason was that support is included in the price, as well as the IP numbers, we get 500-1000 IP's included in every server we lease. Those can add up to alot of maoney with other hosts.

Yes IP's can add up for some hosts but everything in life is negotiable.

Here's the thing: if someone goes into a lease at Alabanza, given all that everybody has said about them, and expects tons of flexibility, or the ability to do massive customizations without screwing something up, they are going to be severely disappointed. Do I wish that some things weren't as integrated so tightly? Sure, I think we've all had that feeling. But even without the DSM/control panel, I think they are still a pretty good choice for people who don't need 5 or 10 (or 24, as I saw on one site) different configurations for their hardware. I want something that will do the job that I need it to do, and I want to know that the provider a) is going to be around for awhile and b) is going to be up. Disregarding, for the moment, the problems night before last, and given that they certainly wouldn't be able to charge as much for their servers if they didn't have the automation stuff in place, I'd still pick them in a heartbeat without the pretty pictures. Software in and of itself does not make or break a provider. Being able to deliver on what you say you will is what separates you from the pack.

JeremyL, you say they're "not willing to be flexible"? Let's not confuse this with maintaining stability. Trying to be "all things to all people" can be hazardous to a company's health.

Normally I'm out their beating the Alabanza drum, but in this case, I agree with JeremyL. There were two big reasons I went to Alabanza

1) Fantastic (the best I've ever seen) control panel for both the user and admin. VDI's is good, don't get me wrong, but I still think that Alabanza has the best. It has a long ways to go and needs some more features, but it's still pretty darn good.

2) Fantastic Customer service.

If one of those didn't exist, I would have stayed with Rackspace. I mean Rackspace has great customer support, but they have no control panel.

Realistically the server that Alabanza sells is good, but ask yourself, if the control panel didn't exist, would you still be there? Say they used Plesk or something like that. Would you still have choosen them and would they still have so many people saying how good they are. If yes is the answer, then why don't people talk about Rackspace all the time? Did you know that they are the 2nd or 3rd largest provider on the net?

The uptime is great. Well, except for when I was hacked, my server never went down at Rackspace.

What I'm saying is don't kid yourself, even Alabanza knows it. Their control panel isn't the only selling point, but it is the biggest.

Exactly, also, on the IP Issue, as we all know Arin has their little rule out about virtual hosting, I don't foresee Alabanza changing anytime soon, however, they will buckle and either

A) Limit IP's

or

B) Start charging for IP's and offer a non-ip based account setup option as well.

"Let's not confuse this with maintaining stability. Trying to be "all things to all people" can be hazardous to a company's health. "


Flexible in a hardware sence is not hazardous.

What difference does it make to redhat if its running on a P3 550 or a P3 800mhz and 1gb ram or 128mb ram, or has a few more hard drives in there?

Not one bit......

Now I suppose I can understand a bit on the software side, but thats just alabanza with their DSM which is way too tightly integrated for anyone to change much of anything software wise as I understand it.

It's not flexibility that's hazardous - it's trying to overextend yourself that becomes the problem. And say they dropped the software portion - they wouldn't be able to charge as much, so the price would have to be dropped in order to be competitive. So you're left with support and connectivity, both of which are among the tops. We'd still pick them, as I said before. I know it sounds like I'm just a cheerleader for Alabanza, but that isn't it. After the horrible TH experience we had, it's just nice to have people do what they say they will and offer the services they promise. If Alabanza went down the toilet, you can bet that we'd be looking around. But so far, no other provider has exactly lit the world on fire with what they're offering.

Originally posted by Annette
But so far, no other provider has exactly lit the world on fire with what they're offering.

I agree with this 110%, but I don't think that it will be too long. I think that others are realizing Alabanza's success rate on their control panels and are working on something as good if not better.

What I would like to see Alabanza do is offer more than just dedicated Linux servers. I'd like to see them offer Cobalt's and Co-Location.

alchiba,

I don't think I am confusing the two. All I am saying is one server setup and two hardware setups is very limiting. I know of 3 cgi scripts that I couldn't run on a stock alabanza server due to not having the right modules installed. Which is fine I can istall them myself but then if something goes wrong with perl they will assume it was my fault even if down the line and charge me to fix it. I would also like to see Real Server. I am not saying be everything to everyone but they are giving pretty much no choices at all. It's a take it leave it type deal.

Annette,

You are right. The pretty pictures do not make a web host. But I think that most of the larger hosts who are in this business would rather buy a license for a piece of software like DSM/Control panel and get their servers cheaper. It would be more cost effective for them in the long run. You are probably right in the 50% number but still you have to admit if the software or an equivelent was on the market that there would be alot of people that would have normally gone with alabanza who would then go with someone else.

Oh, I have no doubt that you're right about that. There are some people who specifically chose Alabanza because of the automation offered (some, in fact, because they don't really know that much, tech-wise), and who would probably leave in a heartbeat if the controls were suddenly pulled. Many, however, would stay, for all the reasons iterated previously.

The licensing thing is an interesting thought, although some of the licensing fees I've seen for things that we might want at some point are sky-high - so even if it were a separate piece of the pie, the total cost might well be the same as it is now.

About Real Server: I wouldn't mind seeing that installed by default. But since it took less than ten minutes for us to install it (and since there is something to be said for being a geek and getting down and dirty with command-line stuff), I didn't mind too terribly. :)

About RealServer....I have an Alabanza server, but I also have a reseller account at OLM, for one simple reason...RealServer.


If you install the free RealServer at Alabanza, you have a total of 25 concurrent streams limit. If you pay $2000, your still limited to 60 streams simultaneously.


I have talked to OLM, and the RealServer they have has unlimited streaming, meaning there is no limit to the simultaneous streams.


So if you install the free RealServer, or the bottom of the pay RealServer, you cannot have very many people listening/watching your stream before it hits it's limit.


I program SMIL, and I hate the http streaming, and even the pnm streaming, i need the rtsp protocol streaming because I need the timing mechanisms that the newer rtsp protocol supports, also rtsp RealServer streaming has "SureStream" which is much better...you do not need to program as much in SMIL when you have SureStream because it automaticlly changes codecs if the stream slows down because of network congestion.

Jeremy,

Your analysis of why Apple's market shrank to niche proportions is way off. You're overlooking one big part, Apple controlled the hardware and the software for its computers. The availability of cheap clones for the IBM PC standard, which came with either MS DOS or (IBM) PC DOS, is what helped the IBM standard PC rise to market dominance.

That dominance had been well established by the time Microsoft released Windows 3.0, their first successful version. It is not open as you suggest.

There is some truth in Apple's decline being related to wanting to be the sole source, but it is hardware more than software than makes it true.

Annette and others have already addressed the issue of people choosing a host on much more than their control panel, so I won't bother to repeat it. Let's just say your analysis is sloppy. You get a D- on your report. ;)

Duster is right, I've been involved with computers for 21 years now, trust me, I saw it ALL ..., many years ago when IBM was starting to screw Microsoft, Bill went to Apple and proposed them the deal of the century, Open the hardware to other vendors and they would develop mainly to Apple (trying to get back at IBM), but Apple refused the deal, only many years later they decided to start opening the OEM platform, but by then it was too late, indeed what killed (well, not kill, but almost) was the fact they kept the hardware to themselves, as a 3D animator I saw the same fate happen to what I allways will consider the best video machine ever built .. The Commodore Amiga, had they licenced the hardware the platform would have survived (and dominated the marked) until today.

Alabanza's Software is unique at the moment, others will copy it in the near future no dubt, but if they play it smart they will keep it a step ahead of the competition, one great improvement would be the setup of subdomains in the CP.

Their worst enemy can only be Alabanza itself.

I really don't see the problem with the subdomains, their smallest server comes with 500 IP's, the larger one with 1000 IP's.....are you going to put more than 500 or 1000 sites on your server?

The DSM and CP's already easily sets up subdomains, with IP's...i, for one, am not putting more than 300 sites on my servers, whether they are domains or subdomains does not matter to the processor and ram.


So i will end up with about 200 extra IP's on each server, why would i want to make IPless subdomains?

I got a D-

Hey I passed ;)

I think I should at least get a C. I realized that hardware was part of it I was just trying to keep it simple and relate it to the topic at hand which is software. Ok maybe not a C but at least a D+


I really don't see the problem with the subdomains, their smallest server comes with 500 IP's, the larger one with 1000 IP's.....are you going to put more than 500 or 1000 sites on your server?

The DSM and CP's already easily sets up subdomains, with IP's...i, for one, am not putting more than 300 sites on my servers, whether they are domains or subdomains does not matter to the processor and ram.


So i will end up with about 200 extra IP's on each server, why would i want to make IPless subdomains?


I agree with greg on that one.

[Edited by JeremyL on 09-21-2000 at 04:38 PM]

Be glad you didn't get an F. At least you recognized that retaining proprietary control was the cause for Apple's decline, even if your misapplied it and all your other "facts" were wrong. Under the circumstances, I think D- was generous. However, if you want me to reconsider the grade, I'll be glad to do so. Just remember that it can still go down as well as up. ;-D

Now I wouldn't go that far. Even if apple had all the cheap hardware and clones availible it would have done no good if they weren't willing to license out their software. So then it comes full circle back to needing to license out their software to have not gone down the toilet.

That goes without saying. Apple's refusal to let go of the hardware end and open it up for competition, limited their software end as well.

However, you can scratch the -. :wavey:

Not really, Microsoft never licenced windows did they ?

Every manufaturer ou there that sells their PC's with windows running on it pays microsoft licensing fees. If you buy windows out of a box in a store you are buying a license.

Originally posted by Annette
50%, eh, as if a control panel is the only reason to choose any provider? Glad you're not doing the handicapping for the weekend football games that I pick, because I'd surely tank if you did. It takes more than pretty pictures to make a decent provider. I haven't found another provider that gives the things that Alabanza does, and even though I get torqued about some things, they are far and away better, feature-wise, than anyone else we checked before leasing from them.

Would you still consider Alabanza a good deal if this thread was true and you prices increased to this?
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=2081

That thread is true. We have a contract that specifies certain things, and I am writing up some questions to ask whoever has been put in charge of our account. Since I have no firm answers to some of my questions, I'm refraining from speculation. If we go, it will not be because of the price increase, which doesn't amount to all that much. It will be because they do not honor contracts made in good faith.

Originally posted by Annette
That thread is true. We have a contract that specifies certain things, and I am writing up some questions to ask whoever has been put in charge of our account. Since I have no firm answers to some of my questions, I'm refraining from speculation. If we go, it will not be because of the price increase, which doesn't amount to all that much. It will be because they do not honor contracts made in good faith.

It was up to 500 IP's included, now will be 35 (the higher number posted here). That's 465 less IP's. At $1 each that's $465 a month more. That sounds like a lot to me! Granted, I'm not using 500 right now :) but.. that is what was agreed and I certainly hope to be reaching that point in time. And this is disregarding the possible change mentioned of going from $400 to $895. If this is true that a difference of $495 per month on my next payment. Multiply that by the 3 months and that's $1,485 more, nearly enough extra for me to have a similar server setup and paid for elsewhere, and that's just the increase!

Sounds like a lot to me!! Plus, you do make an excellent point about the broken contract. I do not treat my clients that way and I refuse to be treated so. Granted, this is still at the rumor level and I have not confirmed these issues with Alabanza. I'll call them in the morning. But I have gotten a quote elsewhere already, just in case...

I don't think I can sleep tonight :) .. umm mayb go to ebay to shop for a server and colocate at VDI :) .. hey.. I have an idea..


how about.. all of us write a petition if this is true.. .. :) or maybe not.. I wouldn't bother.. jsut go with another NOC :)

Eeebayyyyyyyyyy :)

Look, before you get to excited, read your contract. There are apparently two different versions out there.

One says "up to 500 IP's" and the other says "up to 500 Control Panels". Remember that a control panel is NOT an IP address. Apparently there is a way to setup and account (though you have to do it manually) using a shared IP and still give the client a control panel.

My feelin (notice the MY) is that if your contract says "up to 500 IP's" then you are "safe" and have something to stand on. If, however, it says "up to 500 Control Panels" then I think that they could start charging you per IP over 35.

Just so you know, it is TRUE. I'm with Annette in that I don't want to speculate until I talk to my account rep. today. Maybe there is a general concern that they have and there are other ways to fix it.

I agree with Mike. Lets wait and see what happens and hope for the best!