VPS Optmized Logo

[tkerns]

I guess I'm lost then. What's wrong with the logo? If it's ugly, we can change it.

The problem is not that its ugly, the problem is that it says 'VPS', which can be misleading as to the quality and power of the server.

The problem is the public misconception that 'VPS' equals cheap, or low power, or low end. This is often not the case.

My VPS has guaranteed RAM of 4 gig, burst to 8 gig, and guaranteed 2 cores of a dual cpu quad core intel clovertown processor, with burst to all 8 cores.
That VPS is considerably more powerful, and has more resources than many dedicated servers.

There is not even any need for this VPS to be running a VPS optimized version of cpanel, but because it is a VPS, it is entitled to the lower price license, and thus comes with the 'VPS Optimized' logo.

To be more accurate, perhaps instead of saying VPS Opitmized, the logo should include the specs of the vps package.

Its not an issue for us, because all of our resellers understand what the server specs are, and we re-brand cpanel for the end users, but many end users would be put off by the VPS logo, and not listen to, or understand the actual specs of the server.

So, can you at least understand that the 'VPS Optimized' logo can have the effect of inaccurately representing the server as a 'low end' server to the uninformed general public?

Tom

[xyber13]

Since you asked...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Lying by omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception.


That seems a tad snarky.

Correction Mr Mhmjr, i was not asking for your definition. I got mine from dictionary.com. Perhaps you've heard of a dictionary? Somewhere you get exact meaning to words? Just Incase you haven't, visit this link. I am sure it would be very informative.

Like i said Mr Mhmjr, if you want a friendly banter(psst, you can check it out at the link given above), let us not disturb this thread with such exchanges. You may PM me about it.

And one more thing, making such an accusation statement that i was being snarky, hmmm sounds judging. I shan't blame you, afterall we get our definition from different sources. It is a privilege to have someone highly intellectual to share his wonderful opinion. Once again i stress, please PM if you have more wonderful views to share.

CPanel folks, let me just clarify that my previous statement with regards to you guys are my appreciative genuine sentiments. And you have my word that should this Mr Mhmjr wishes to continue to say air his view on this thread which indirectly might be termed as abuse as it is not related to the starter's thread, i will not follow suit.

Once again, thank you Mr Mhmjr and CPanel folks and everyone here. Looking forward to some related replies to the original post.

Warm Regards,
-Xyber13.

[xyber13]

The problem is not that its ugly, the problem is that it says 'VPS', which can be misleading as to the quality and power of the server.

The problem is the public misconception that 'VPS' equals cheap, or low power, or low end. This is often not the case.

My VPS has guaranteed RAM of 4 gig, burst to 8 gig, and guaranteed 2 cores of a dual cpu quad core intel clovertown processor, with burst to all 8 cores.
That VPS is considerably more powerful, and has more resources than many dedicated servers.

There is not even any need for this VPS to be running a VPS optimized version of cpanel, but because it is a VPS, it is entitled to the lower price license, and thus comes with the 'VPS Optimized' logo.

To be more accurate, perhaps instead of saying VPS Opitmized, the logo should include the specs of the vps package.

Its not an issue for us, because all of our resellers understand what the server specs are, and we re-brand cpanel for the end users, but many end users would be put off by the VPS logo, and not listen to, or understand the actual specs of the server.

So, can you at least understand that the 'VPS Optimized' logo can have the effect of inaccurately representing the server as a 'low end' server to the uninformed general public?

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your clear explanation, i could not have reiterated it better myself. Yes, it is because of public misconception, public view and maybe at times flawed understanding of what a VPS is.

The idea is to get rid of this misconception by nipping it in the bud; removing the word VPS itself. Adding the specs can offer a way out however if we take a closer look, this is where it might lead:

Customers don't always know how many people are hosted on the same server. And there is nothing that is absolute, no matter how powerful that server or VPS is, perhaps due to human error or some other technical glitch, anything can happen. And regardless of what we say since ig they have already stereotype VPS as cheap and low quality, no amount of explanation will do or put their worries to rest much less their views. This is why we or rather i want to just do away with it.

And if one thing lead to another, and too much information is then demanded to be plastered across the cpanel screen, how will that make it easier for you? Might seem minute but its still space. I find it unnecessary. Is it just me?

Rgrds,
-Xyber13.

[mhmjr]

Correction Mr Mhmjr, i was not asking for your definition. I got mine from dictionary.com. Perhaps you've heard of a dictionary? Somewhere you get exact meaning to words? Just Incase you haven't, visit this link. I am sure it would be very informative.

I can PM you yes, but since you chose to post here so will I. Lets use dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie


2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

Nice try. As that definition in your own source points out, a lie does not have to be stated. It can be implied such as a lie by omission.

[xyber13]

I can PM you yes, but since you chose to post here so will I. Lets use dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie


2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

Nice try. As that definition in your own source points out, a lie does not have to be stated. It can be implied such as a lie by omission.

Mr Mhmjr, i will PM you my response hence forth, i urge you that there is no need to misuse the thread.

For those who wishes to be updated of this nice exchange of view, kindly PM. Thank you all.

Rgrds,
-Xyber.

[mhmjr]

Mr Mhmjr, i will PM you my response hence forth, i urge you that there is no need to misuse the thread.

For those who wishes to be updated of this nice exchange of view, kindly PM. Thank you all.

Rgrds,
-Xyber.

I can't wait. Once you stop addressing me here I'll stop responding here. Since you keep trying to call me out here, then indicate if I respond its abuse of the thread, it is you who are abusing the thread.

[xyber13]

Hi All,

For those who feels that it is important to remove the "VPS Optimized" inscribed on the header of the CPanel, just add in an "Aye" vote in this thread. Come on guys i can see that there are over 168 views to this topic, for those who are in favour lets see your opinion voiced out. Even for those who may not own but feel strongly towards seeing this change to help our fellow web-hosts out there who's trying to provide quality hosting but slabbed stereotyping as VPS are cheapos. Lets do our bid to help those VPS hosts.

Cheerios,
-Xyber13.

[mhmjr]

It seems reasonable to me, since there is a price difference in the VPS optimized cPanel and cPanel on a full blown dedicated server, that having this logo removed could be harmful to cPanel.

How? Well, just because your own VPS is stable, well maintained and not oversold, many are. It seems to me that if a customer has been running what they *thought* was a fully blown dedicated server running cPanel, and they are on one of the less well maintained, less powerful, and oversold VPS', that their bad impression could be that cPanel is at fault and next time go with a different panel. Is that so hard to see? As stated earlier in this thread...impressions mean a lot in this business. Why should cPanel's reputation be at risk because people want to pass off VPS Optimized cPanel as cPanel on a fully blown dedicated server?

Has anyone even tried the rebranding? the only response to that is someone was under the impression it would not work. I have never used the rebranding interface so I do not know. If it does work, it seems like a perfectly reasonable solution.

If the problem is the impression people have of VPS'. Then work to change that impression by offering rock solid VPS' that are not misrepresented as something else and then BRAG about how your VPS is as good as a dedicated server, then PROVE it. Once there are a few out there doing that, others will have to follow suit to compete instead of continuing to tarnish the reputation of VPS'.

-mhmjr
Defender of truth! Champion of justice!

[paulkoan]

This logic doesn't fly.

A "full blown dedicated server" with poor specifications will perform worse than a properly specced VPS server and be just as "harmful" to cPanel. However, cPanel doesn't have a "crap dedicated server optimised" branding scheme.

The licencing agreement between a reseller and cPanel has no business being exposed to the end customer.

The negative perception of VPS performance is real and could be altered, but doesn't change the fact that it is there and impacting right now and marketing efforts to change that perception should not be driven by cPanel altering the representation of the product that I have bought and sold.

I vote "yes" for removal.

[rone]

What is the big point? Just login to your server (ssh) replace the logo and thats all. The only thing is you have to do this every time after you do a update.
I don't see the point for such discussion if cPanel thinks it should be there then so be it. If you don't like it for what reason just do it yourself.

[paulkoan]

I imagine that the point of such a discussion is to let cPanel know that while it believes there are no issues with changing the branding, its customers, and its customer's customers *do* have an issue.

So we are feeding back to cPanel. And as cPanel are interested in what their customers think, they will welcome this feedback and include it in any future decisions about their product.

[mhmjr]

This logic doesn't fly.

A "full blown dedicated server" with poor specifications will perform worse than a properly specced VPS server and be just as "harmful" to cPanel. However, cPanel doesn't have a "crap dedicated server optimised" branding scheme.

Yes but considering proper specs on each, and all else being equal the performance of a dedicated server will be better than the VPS. You aren't quite comparing apples to oranges no, but something like comparing apples to say a pear.

In addition, a VPS is much more likely to be poorly specced for what it is doing than a dedicated server.

What is the big point? Just login to your server (ssh) replace the logo and thats all. The only thing is you have to do this every time after you do a update.

That, if it works and doesn't violate licensing, is a good idea. You can then chattr -i the logo and shouldn't even have to mess with it after an update.

-mhmjr

[paulkoan]

Yes but considering proper specs on each, and all else being equal the performance of a dedicated server will be better than the VPS. You aren't quite comparing apples to oranges no, but something like comparing apples to say a pear.

My point was that such comparisons aren't relevant because things are rarely equal and many things can impact performance.

There are no benefits to be gained from this branding for cPanel or anyone else. As has been reported, there are negative consequences as the customers of cpanel's customers are requesting alternate panels due to the branding. If we lose business, then cPanel loses business. There are no wins for anyone.

Yes we can screw around with image files and permissions, but we shouldn't *have* to - there is already enough to do without having to manage this as well.

[mhmjr]

My point was that such comparisons aren't relevant because things are rarely equal and many things can impact performance.

True. I agree. Hence:

In addition, a VPS is much more likely to be poorly specced for what it is doing than a dedicated server.

There are no benefits to be gained from this branding for cPanel or anyone else. As has been reported, there are negative consequences as the customers of cpanel's customers are requesting alternate panels due to the branding. If we lose business, then cPanel loses business. There are no wins for anyone.

Yes we can screw around with image files and permissions, but we shouldn't *have* to - there is already enough to do without having to manage this as well.

There ARE benefits of having the branding there. People who are aware that they are getting a VPS might be pleased by the fact that cPanel has been optimized for a VPS environment. If VPS providers lose business, its not certainly a loss for business for cPanel as the customer may decide (and is likely to decide) that the problem was the VPS and not the panel. Which in many if not most cases would be true. Replacing the logo and running one command to ensure it stays would be *almost* as easy as providing that option in the interface. Its trivial and would only need to be done once provided you chattr it immutable.

-mhmjr

[xyber13]

Guys,

Frankly, i don't see how it could affect CPanel to have this branding removed and we shouldn't have to do it manually, our jobs is already demanding so much of us. As said the licensing is between us and CPanel. Really. Thank you paulkoan.

And honestly, there is a certain someone who just magically pops in the middle of this whole fiasco. And miraculously, his first post ever was made in this thread and he was registered 12-04-2007. Sounds too coincidental. What do you guys think?

Rgrds,
Xyber13.