Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Migrating from reselling to dedicated solutions - need help.

[Vyper]

Goodafternoon Peeps!

Strangely enough, I have frequented these boards now for the last few months and had never registered. I guess part of the reason being is because I wanted to educate myself more and get to know the different personalities on this board before joining.

Anyhow, I wanted to get some serious opinions about what I am facing here in the near future. Here is a description of what is going on:

I am a current reseller for AIT, Communitech, and an Alabanza based host. I currently have about 25 resold accounts scattered all throughout the three. Actually, I recently got kicked off of Communitech just recently (more on that later). If some of you don't know, AIT primarily offers IP-less hosting accounts without the option of additional IP addresses. Alabanza and Communitech of course assigned seperate IP's as most of you know.

Now some of you may be asking why in the world I would represent so many different companies. The answer is, research and relationship. What I mean by this is I a am one to be loyal once I find a provider I like. It's getting more and more difficult nowadays to rely on any source no matter where it comes from when it comes to recommendations. In my experience, you never know which provider is the best to go with without actually having an account with them. So that is why I do this, to experience the whole gambit that a provider offers ranging from plans, pricing, support, features, etc.

Now here's the deal. I've been reselling for other providers now for approximately a year and a half. I have read so much about dedicated hosting and have decided that I would now seek a provider who can accomadate my needs. (I know, some of you may think this belongs in the advert forum, but hear me out.) I am looking for advice on these companies in particular:

webexpose.net
dedicatedhosting.com
site5.com
ultraspeedusa.com
superb.net
tera-byte.com
catalog.com

I would like to hear your opinions on why there is so much differentiation on the plans, beliefs, and pricing these dedicated hosting providers offer. I had spoken to each one of them (on the phone) personally. Ironically enough, the people I have spoken to are all registered on this board. So you could say I heard it straight from the source. My problem is, I'm starting to get frustrated with the amount of time it's taking me to decide on one of the above providers. These are the problems I run into:

1) If the only thing I've been exposed to all this time is Linux, should I stay away from NT all together? No, I don't know how to administer Linux either without some type of control panel to help me. With this in mind, should I worry about NT offerings if it also came with an Admin friendly control panel? My worry is the overall transition as far as how CGI, Perl, mail, etc. is going to be different on an NT machine. Although, I am a quick learner and love this stuff so I'm thinking that I'll be o.k. on either one. What do you guys think?

2) I don't want a Cobalt RAQ whatsoever so I'm looking into a true server. Each rep from the companies above tried to offer me different specs.

- Should I even consider a Celeron? Some say that the cache built-in the PIII's don't even get utilized in a Linux based system.

- Some suggest 128mb minimum. Should I pay extra for for another 128mb?

- Should I worry if a server runs on an Intel or AMD based processor?

- As far as a control panel is concerned, which one is the most user friendly for the administrator and for their end-users? Also, which one would be able to span 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generations of resellers? I am not considering Alabanza at this point.

- What would be the minimum amount of add-ons I would opt for. Tape backup, admin support, security, etc. What do you guys use?

- Can I configure a better (and more affordable) server if I provide my own hardware and/or software? Will support be just "AS" good if I colo instead?

3) Are there any flexible providers that you know of that would maybe offer me a more powerful server, but with less bandwidth? Let's say maybe from 25-50GB to start?

4) Why do some offer additional IP's for free and some charge as much as $75 plus a monthly fee for a block of so many?

5) Why do these providers throw around the terms "rent" and "lease" out so loosely? I would think that if you are going to pay $300-$1000/mo for a dedicated server that you would eventually own it at some point in time. I know superb.net and webexpose.net give you a "true" lease option, but why isn't everybody like this?

Sorry for the 20 questions folks. I just need to find someone who can meet my expectations and can be flexible with what I want. Please don't get the wrong impression, I am not a difficult client to have onboard. I just want to make sure that if I decide to go with a company, that they will provide me the same level of service that I would like to offer my clients...TOP NOTCH. I am willing to pay $200-$400 a month for what I am looking for. I have to be honest however that I tend to be deterred by those that have pricey setup fees, no phone support, un-knowledgeable sales and support staff, long-term contracts, in addition to the more obvious things.

I would appreciate any feedback. I apologize if some of you think this could have been searched for or submitted into more specific categories, but I am somewhat of in a hurry. I have already read practically every post about those companies, dedicated hosting, hosting business, and misc. threads...just to let you know. Not to say that I'm not satisfied with what I've read, but just want to be as thorough as possible. I thank you in advance for anyone's input. I will owe you guys greatly!

[kymber]

Well it looks as if you and I are in about the same boat. These are the exact same questions that I have, and I'm glad that you asked these questions. I hope we will get our answers. Here is my list in no particular order.

VDI.net (vdi.net, ultraspeedusa.com, site5.com, or interserver.net)
Catalog.com
DialtoneInternet.com
Rackspace.com
Tera-byte.com
Dedicatedhosting.com
Superb.net

I have been trying to make a decision for months as well, so I hope someone can enlightened us. Thanks.
Kymber

[Vyper]

Would you believe that I have been in front of the computer and on the phone 16 hours a day for 14 days straight trying to get the answers I need! I feel that I know so much about so little and feel totally worn out! I think the difficult thing for me is that I am one of the most helpful and dedicated people when it comes to providing a service.

Because of this, it makes it so difficult for me to make a decision when sales people for these companies don't meet my level of expectations. I guess you can say that I'm a perfectionist, but you almost have to be if you want to stand out from the rest of the crowd.

ultraspeedusa.com sounded good when I talked to them, although sales never did e-mail me back about my questions. Also, you need to allow them a few days for setup of a new server.

dialtoneinternet.com was friendly, but the sales person I spoke to had to pass me off to a techie.

tera-byte.com kept trying to push me towards a raq 3 with 32mb of ram, although it was an excellent deal for what you got with no setup fees.

dedicatedhosting.com sounded very knowledeable but very pricey. I felt like they were nickel and diming me to death with what I was looking for. Although, they are very good about following up. I have received 2 e-mails so far from the rep I spoke to yesterday.

superb.net also sounded attractive because of their lease to own program. However, they charge for every single thing that by the time you get a decent setup, you might as well go with Alabanza. Hopefully that it would hold true that "you get what you pay for" if you do end up going with them.

site5.com looks like a strong competitor because of their custom control panel. The only thing that shys me away from them is there website and their pricing. The website doesn't seem to be complete yet, not a bad thing, but it would take me a few minutes to list what is not working. Although, I am eagerly awaiting to see the final product once they get everything on track.

vdi.net is way too expensive if you go direct. Enough said.

Hope this helps.

[kymber]

Whoooa....we have way too much in common...
O.K. guru's we want answers

[Stan]

and hope I don't swamp the boat.

I'll also be keeping an eye on this thread.

[BC]

Geez, some of you are demanding

Originally posted by

Vyper
I am looking for advice on these companies in particular:

webexpose.net
dedicatedhosting.com
site5.com
ultraspeedusa.com
superb.net
tera-byte.com
catalog.com

I would like to hear your opinions on why there is so much differentiation on the plans, beliefs, and pricing these dedicated hosting providers offer. I had spoken to each one of them (on the phone) personally. Ironically enough, the people I have spoken to are all registered on this board. So you could say I heard it straight from the source. My problem is, I'm starting to get frustrated with the amount of time it's taking me to decide on one of the above providers. These are the problems I run into:

You will get an extraordinary amount of difference simply because the web hosting/reselling business is quite similar to other industries : each company has different business models, and depending on staff requirements, system requirements and profit margins they will charge what they think is an appropriate amount.

As for the amount of time spent, although it can be extraordinary frustrating, I estimate (personally speaking) that each hour of research spent means a 5 hour saving in future in terms of lost tech support, billing issues and other relevant issues.

1) If the only thing I've been exposed to all this time is Linux, should I stay away from NT all together? No, I don't know how to administer Linux either without some type of control panel to help me. With this in mind, should I worry about NT offerings if it also came with an Admin friendly control panel? My worry is the overall transition as far as how CGI, Perl, mail, etc. is going to be different on an NT machine. Although, I am a quick learner and love this stuff so I'm thinking that I'll be o.k. on either one. What do you guys think?

If you are moving to a dedicated Linux server, you must know how to administrate a Linux server. End of story. And that unfortunately doesn't mean you can just use a CP and hope to get away with it. You must know how to execute commands at the command line through Telnet/SSH, and perform various tasks as necessary on Linux. That said, the same nearly applies for NT - you still need an in-depth knowledge of NT unless you get a Control Panel which does nearly everything for you (like WebExpose does to a point).

On NT, CGI/Perl performance is a bit slower than running on an ordinary Linux system, though performance has been improving in recent iterations of Perl and Win2K. Mail will obviously be handled differently to Linux.

My advice : get some books on Linux System administration books (do a search on 'system administration books' and you should turn up a few threads - there was a thread on this in the last week), as well as NT (if that's what you're considering), read up, then learn to break a Linux box and rebuild from scratch. That's the best way to learn.

2) I don't want a Cobalt RAQ whatsoever so I'm looking into a true server. Each rep from the companies above tried to offer me different specs.

- Should I even consider a Celeron? Some say that the cache built-in the PIII's don't even get utilized in a Linux based system.

Do a search on this forum (again) - a Celeron can be considered if you're not running too many sites.

- Some suggest 128mb minimum. Should I pay extra for for another 128mb?

The more RAM the better.

- Should I worry if a server runs on an Intel or AMD based processor?

Again, previous threads should answer this for you. The general consensus seemed to be that you would be better off (to an extent) on Intel processors, as they seem to provide slightly more reliable performance.

- As far as a control panel is concerned, which one is the most user friendly for the administrator and for their end-users? Also, which one would be able to span 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generations of resellers? I am not considering Alabanza at this point.

This I can't answer - one of the reps or other resellers with experience would be able to answer this. Ping : MikeA, DanielP, and all other resellers with experience in the above companies.

- What would be the minimum amount of add-ons I would opt for. Tape backup, admin support, security, etc. What do you guys use?

Depends on how mission-critical your server is. Daily tape backups are essential, 24X7 support from the parent company is best, and usually the parent company will take care of security and other features as required. Others can advise as to the optimal features required.

- Can I configure a better (and more affordable) server if I provide my own hardware and/or software? Will support be just "AS" good if I colo instead?

Theoretically it would be a bit cheaper if you went colo; however, if something suddenly fails (like a power supply or the HDD suddenly corrupts for some reason) then you'd have to be on-spot with parts in hand to fix it or authorise one of the techs to fix it for you (depending on the level of support you get from your co-lo provider).

3) Are there any flexible providers that you know of that would maybe offer me a more powerful server, but with less bandwidth? Let's say maybe from 25-50GB to start?

You might like to negotiate with the companies themselves; they might be quite willing to save on bandwidth and negotiate flexible deals with you.

4) Why do some offer additional IP's for free and some charge as much as $75 plus a monthly fee for a block of so many?

It partly depends on the IP block they already exist in - you might recall that ARIN recently withdrew a policy of issuing IPs in their IP ranges due to widespread criticism - quite a few providers were in ARIN's blocks and were forced to charge extra or limit the no. of IPs available. After that, it's discretion on the part of the host.

5) Why do these providers throw around the terms "rent" and "lease" out so loosely? I would think that if you are going to pay $300-$1000/mo for a dedicated server that you would eventually own it at some point in time. I know superb.net and webexpose.net give you a "true" lease option, but why isn't everybody like this?

Someone else had better answer this - MikeA?

=========================================================
Quite frankly, the more questions the better - you learn more, and you are better equipped to cope with any unforeseen problems. Don't see yourself as a bothersome client - see yourself as a client who demands the best from both your host and your server.

I wish you the best, and you better bug the other guys to get in here and help. Good luck!

[Vyper]

I appreciate the help and suggestions. In fact, guess why it took me so long to reply?

I just came back from a shopping spree! Here's what I picked up:

- Red Hat Linux 7 Professional Server
- Master Red Hat Linux Visually (book)
- Setup a Linux Internet Server (book)
- Exam Cram's Linux (Exam RH-302)
- Maximum Linux (magazine)
- Linux Format (magazine)

As you can see, I'm going to put together a Linux server over the weekend and run it through some worse case scenarios.

Since I know you use webexpose.net, how reliable is the support? I talked to someone there earlier who was in sales and wasn't really up on the technical mumbo jumbo. My specific question had to do with their control panel. I had asked them that if I wanted to resell to resellers, if it could span more than two levels down. He said that he thinks so since that is what they do with their reseller program. If so, does the admin panel have control over all the accounts under it or do you just login to each individual hosts account using their username and password?

Right now my immediate concern is features. I don't even mind if it costs a little bit more and if I have to break even for the first year while I'm learning. The only thing I want to be able to do on my dedicated server is to create virtual accounts and provide my end users with an easy to use control panel. I also want a good mail system in place since that seems to be a big headache when it doesn't work properly. Am I safe with webexpose's dedicated servers if this is all I want to do? For example, can you create a virtual host pretty easy with their control panel? And if so, will it create the necessary directories like the cgi-bin, http, mail, etc. automatically for you? If it does, that is all I want it to do. I guess what I am truly looking for is dedicated server setup somewhat like a reseller program.

(PHEW! I don't know why I just didn't say that to begin with.)

[Duster]

Originally posted by Vyper
Here is a description of what is going on:

I am a current reseller for AIT, Communitech, and an Alabanza based host.

AIT? Ugh! I used them once.

I understand and agree with your decision to use and test a host rather than rely on promises. There's no need to ask why you use 3 separate one. I know someone who used 27 at one point. He finally got his own server and dumped them all (none were impressive at all)(.

I would like to hear your opinions on why there is so much differentiation on the plans, beliefs, and pricing these dedicated hosting providers offer. I had spoken to each one of them (on the phone) personally. Ironically enough, the people I have spoken to are all registered on this board. So you could say I heard it straight from the source. My problem is, I'm starting to get frustrated with the amount of time it's taking me to decide on one of the above providers.

Free market economics answers your question (and it's coincidence, not irony). I understand your frustration, just know that whatever amount of time you spend searching for a proper host will be well worth it. Ultimately, it will be cheaper (no recurring set up fees moving from host to host), less time consuming (no moving sites and customers from host to host), better for your customers (see previous reason and factor in DNS issues that cause access problems in any change).

I spent a lot of time looking too when I was in your situation. I wanted the last time I moved to be the last time. After 5 months with the company I chose (Dialtone Internet) I'm sure it is.

These are the problems I run into:

1) If the only thing I've been exposed to all this time is Linux, should I stay away from NT all together? No, I don't know how to administer Linux either without some type of control panel to help me. With this in mind, should I worry about NT offerings if it also came with an Admin friendly control panel? My worry is the overall transition as far as how CGI, Perl, mail, etc. is going to be different on an NT machine. Although, I am a quick learner and love this stuff so I'm thinking that I'll be o.k. on either one. What do you guys think?

Yes, stay away from NT. You obviously have no need of it and it is less secure than Linux, more problematic, and somewhat less stable. Most of the things and programs you mentioned are configured differently under NT than Linux and you don't need the headaches and aggravation (though I support your right to choose to make things tougher on yourself than they need be)

You are familiar with Linux to some extent, so you may be ready. I've got info on my site to help beginners and you sound like you may at the right stage of preparation.

I won't address most of the technical questions you posed next as you have already received competent answers.

- What would be the minimum amount of add-ons I would opt for. Tape backup, admin support, security, etc. What do you guys use?

- Can I configure a better (and more affordable) server if I provide my own hardware and/or software? Will support be just "AS" good if I colo instead?

Backups can be done on hard drives also. Security is your responsibility and is an ongoing issue. Some hosts provide security updates but it is usually your responsiblity to make use of them.

As far as your questions on colocation, it depends on the company and forget about it anyway. You're not ready to colocate (info on my site explains why). Thus, it's a moot point. Suffice it to say that colocation is not for beginners. I can't honestly answer the colo support issue, though you are responsible for it. I don't know if it is at the same level as dedicated customers receive, but presumably so at better companies. The attitude of those companies to provide a high level of support likely does not change simply becauue a customer colocates rather than leases a server. It's still a paying customer.

If I need tech support, or some questions answered, I have that availability. That is important to me.

3) Are there any flexible providers that you know of that would maybe offer me a more powerful server, but with less bandwidth? Let's say maybe from 25-50GB to start?

4) Why do some offer additional IP's for free and some charge as much as $75 plus a monthly fee for a block of so many?

5) Why do these providers throw around the terms "rent" and "lease" out so loosely? I would think that if you are going to pay $300-$1000/mo for a dedicated server that you would eventually own it at some point in time. I know superb.net and webexpose.net give you a "true" lease option, but why isn't everybody like this?

3. Probably. Some hosts are flexible and do custom configurations and deals. You'll have to check with your semi-finalists or finalists for details.

4. Free market economics. You have to look at the total cost of a server, including such things as additional IP addresses. Again, you may want to look at my site for specific info.

5. This is one area where most hosts do use terminology correctly. It is you who is using the wrong term, or applying the wrong meaning. Owning is never a part of the concept of leasing or renting. Otherwise, it would be purchasing. If you lease an aparment, house, or car, you don't own it at the end of the lease period. A true lease is one in which you pay a fee for the use of something without becoming the owner of it.

What you are thinking of is a rent to own option, which is a very different principle. It is typically more expensive than purchasing and not a satisfactory alternative to leasing, for reasons I won't go into now (this is long enough already).

Sorry for the 20 questions folks. I just need to find someone who can meet my expectations and can be flexible with what I want. Please don't get the wrong impression, I am not a difficult client to have onboard. I just want to make sure that if I decide to go with a company, that they will provide me the same level of service that I would like to offer my clients...TOP NOTCH. I am willing to pay $200-$400 a month for what I am looking for. I have to be honest however that I tend to be deterred by those that have pricey setup fees, no phone support, un-knowledgeable sales and support staff, long-term contracts, in addition to the more obvious things.

I would appreciate any feedback. I apologize if some of you think this could have been searched for or submitted into more specific categories, but I am somewhat of in a hurry. I have already read practically every post about those companies, dedicated hosting, hosting business, and misc. threads...just to let you know. Not to say that I'm not satisfied with what I've read, but just want to be as thorough as possible. I thank you in advance for anyone's input. I will owe you guys greatly!

I commend you for your efforts. Unlike many who simply accept advertising propaganda without giving it any thought, you're doing your homework and investigation. Good for you. You're more likely to get a better host. You've certainly indicated you will be a better, more informed customer. I did much the same as you did and learned a great deal along the way.

If you e-mail me, I have another consideration for you that might help.

[Vyper]

AIT isn't that bad, if you know their system inside and out like I do. I really do believe that most times it isn't really the provider's fault when a problem arises. I tend to think that it is the resellers themselves who don't educate themselves about the products or services.

For example, if you contact all my clients who host with me, I can almost guarantee that most will attest that the hosting services they are paying for are excellent. Although, they don't know that it is really coming from AIT. It is because I've made it a point to know more or as much as AIT's tech support staff when it comes to their services. There have been many times where AIT's tech support would have to call me back or have to escalate some of the problems I've submitted just because they would get stumped. The worst part is that I would end up figuring it out myself by the time they get back to me. The same thing has happened to me many, many times when I used jumpline.com. I can truly say that most of the tech's that have "attempted" to help me knew far less than I did about the Alabanza system.

Quote from Duster:

"5. This is one area where most hosts do use terminology correctly. It is you who is using the wrong term, or applying the wrong meaning. Owning is never a part of the concept of leasing or renting. Otherwise, it would be purchasing. If you lease an aparment, house, or car, you don't own it at the end of the lease period. A true lease is one in which you pay a fee for the use of something without becoming the owner of it.

What you are thinking of is a rent to own option, which is a very different principle. It is typically more expensive than purchasing and not a satisfactory alternative to leasing, for reasons I won't go into now (this is long enough already)."

I have to disagree with you on this one (not completely). I forgot to mention that we are also a rent-to-own and leasing company. We specialize in computer hardware and software. It's true that a lease doesn't necessarily mean that you will own it at the end, and no one should ever assume that at any time without making sure. Although, a "true" lease is supposed to extend a customer an option to "pay off" and "own" whatever it is they're leasing at the end of the contract. Renting is just that, rent. If you are renting something from someone, you'll surely never own it. Leases are a popular alternative to renting because you have the option to own it or pay it off at some point. Whether someone calls it a "lease" or "lease to own", it "should" mean the same thing unless the seller is disguising a sale as a lease, in which case, it isn't a "true" lease. There really is a difference in opinion when it comes to a "lease" and a "true lease". If they meant to just rent out their servers, they should just say so from the start or they may upset some of their clients down the road.

Now, why would a seller disguise a sale as a lease, you ask? Simply because it makes it attractive to a potential customer because of the low monthly payments and the certain tax advantages. In addition, sellers usually get an additional commission plus a bonus if they go that route. Companies who do this need to think twice for it is illegal in some states.

Also, I don't think I've ever leased a vehicle without the option to buyout the balance at the end of the contract. Don't get me wrong, Duster, I'm not at all berating (sp?) your reply. I'm simply stating that companies need to be careful what they are truly presenting to the customers.

On another note, I am somewhat confused about the security issue when obtaining a dedicated server. Some have said that security implementation is spread out over the provider's entire network. In that case, I would assume that would include the server I purchase or rent? I know some offer security updates, but you say that I may have to be the one to make use of them? If they apply the security updates, what else would I have to do? I don't quite understand what you mean by this, can you please clarify?

Thanks for taking the time for your other replies, I appreciate it!

[Duster]

I had a long reply but this crap program and/or Windows lost it after I hit preview and I'm not up to recreating it.

[Duster]

I will say this- check out my review of AIT.

[BC]

Vyper,

I'll second Duster's advice : unless you really need ASP or any NT-centric stuff, then stick with Linux

With WebExpose, yeah, they'll give you a CP to control your virtual sites when you resell for them. As far as dedicated servers go, I believe it's reasonably easy to manage because their CP is so comprehensive. However, I can't say fully with authority, since I only tried out their dedicated servers for about 2 hours or so before I stuck with their virtual hosting plans.

[Vyper]

Here's an idea that someone has brought to my attention. Has anyone ever thought of going into a dedicated server and splitting the cost? I would think that that would be a very viable solution, if and only if, you could trust whomever you were going with. Think of the possibilites.

- You can share the expense.
- You can share the responsibilities.
- You can help each other out as far as support goes.
- You can learn from each other.
- You can maybe share a merchant account system if one. can't afford it by themselves (I have one, but rarely use it. Maybe 2-3 times a month).
- Marketing can be boosted a bit since there would be more than one person drumming up business.

This goes especially for the Alabanza people out there. Why offer the same thing that hundreds offer for almost the same features and pricing strucure? I know what you guys are thinking, it's the level of service that sets you apart that's going to get you ahead. But face it, how many people on the web nowadays actually know what they are looking for when looking for a host? How many of them truly know that you will provide them better service than any other host?

Just a thought that I think would be a good solution for someone if they are short on resources. I have to say that the most common complaints I've seen so far is the lack of free time everyone has from managing their dedicated server(s). Know matter how much you enjoy the business, everyone will need a break from it every now and then. If you don't have a backup, you might as well marry your ded server for you'll probably be spending more time with it than your significant other.

Also, you may also be able to qualify for higher discounts if you bought more than one server at a time from what I've heard. Of course, who has that kind of money to be snatching up servers in bulk? Know what I mean?

I know partnerships don't always work out for everyone, but think of the possibilities. This would be great if you can put together a good team of people with the same goals and dedication. Espcially with some of the margins you guys are working with as far as profitability and expense. The way I see it, people like us will just flood the market someday with the next Alabanza. Think about it, I had just seen a list of their resellers recently and they're all within a few dollars for the same features.

It's funny how we all come together in a forum like this, but can't come up with a solution to where we're not playing cut throat with each other in such an infinite open market.

Just as a side note, by no means am I necessarily proposing a partnership. Just wanted to throw this one out there for discussion. What do you guys think?

[Duster]

AIT isn't that bad, if you know their system inside and out like I do. I really do believe that most times it isn't really the provider's fault when a problem arises. I tend to think that it is the resellers themselves who don't educate themselves about the products or services.

AIT isn't bad, until you use them, that is. Check my review about them, my very first post here, resurrected recently. They are a bunch of incompetent, apathetic morons. They are polite ones, but morons all the same.

I have to disagree with you on this one (not completely). I forgot to mention that we are also a rent-to-own and leasing company. We specialize in computer hardware and software. It's true that a lease doesn't necessarily mean that you will own it at the end,

A lease never means you will own it, not just "doesn't necessarily mean" you won't. Even when a lease is used as a purchase instrument for tax benefits, there's still a residual value of at least a dollar, or 10% of the value, which must be paid in addition to the lease payments to exercise the purchase option. A lease does not convey ownership, even if it has the option to purchase (at additional cost) or convert to financing.

and no one should ever assume that at any time without making sure. Although, a "true" lease is supposed to extend a customer an option to "pay off" and "own" whatever it is they're leasing at the end of the contract.

Not true. A true lease is one in which you pay for the use of an item without assuming ownership of it, nor the obligation of ownership. Whether or not it has a purchase option is immaterial to the terms of the lease itself.

Renting is just that, rent. If you are renting something from someone, you'll surely never own it. Leases are a popular alternative to renting because you have the option to own it or pay it off at some point.

You won't ever own anything with a lease either. Leasing is merely renting with a committment of time. You can rent a car for a day, a week, a month, or variable amounts, and turn it in at any time. Leasing a car is generally in increments of years and commits one to the specified time period (though once you reach the buy out point, you can do that).

There are many other reasons leases are attractive to many people. However, the financial industry does not agree with your definition of a lease. I was a financial officer and in charge of leasing automobiles, and arranging financing for them, motor homes, boats, and other large ticket items. (As an Intel Products Dealer, I can lease computers and related peripherals through Intel leasing) Most of the leases did have a purchase option (not all, though), and it was immaterial to the lease.

In fact, few people ever exercised the option to buy for the same reason that few would with servers either. Rather than pay more money for an outdated piece of equipment, most would opt to lease a brand new one and roll over into a new lease.

Whether someone calls it a "lease" or "lease to own", it "should" mean the same thing

They aren't the same thing so they shouldn't have the same meaning.

unless the seller is disguising a sale as a lease, in which case, it isn't a "true" lease.

That I agree with. A dollar residual value, for instance, might technically make something a lease, but for practical purposes, it is a purchase.

If they meant to just rent out their servers, they should just say so from the start or they may upset some of their clients down the road.

Actually, they do. the dedicated server companies I'm familiar with state implicitly that you are renting or leasing a server. Some have no committment and you rent month to month. Others are leased, and the contract period is usually 6 months, a year or two.
The only deception I have seen is with two companies, one advertising a free server, the other a server for a dollar. Customers are obligated to purchase a bandwidth package for a year. Close examination reveals both of these "deals" to not be at all attractive.

Many hosting companies engage in deceptive practices, or have misleading or ambiguous terms. There is much room for improvement. Misleading people over servers in this respect is not a widespread problem. It's one thing they almost all get right. They do have accurate representation in this respect.

As regards security issues, it is true the the hosting provider is responsible for physical security and the hardware. The greatest threat, however, is likely to be software related, and the responsibility for that is yours. New exploits (vulnerabilities) are discovered periodically and the fixes usually follow right afterwards (another advantage of Linux -see http://securityportal.com) Companies like DI have a bug fixes and updates page where exploits are announce, along with the solution. They prepare everything for you, telling you waht you need and even preparing the RPM. However, it's still up to you to implement the fixes.

[Chicken]

Originally posted by Vyper
Here's an idea that someone has brought to my attention. Has anyone ever thought of going into a dedicated server and splitting the cost? I would think that that would be a very viable solution, if and only if, you could trust whomever you were going with. Think of the possibilites.

Just as a side note, by no means am I necessarily proposing a partnership. Just wanted to throw this one out there for discussion. What do you guys think?

This is great in theory, but doesn't usually work out in practice for all of the obvious reasons. If you are to share a dedicated server with anyone, I'd recommend that you first form a LLC business and even then it still stands a good chance of not working. People, you know.