222 replies to this topic

[techieboy]

Very far from bollocks, in my experience. I run 80 odd co-located servers plus various other bits of network infrastructure in a data centre in London and another one in Dublin. Even using primarily opensource OS'es and software, bar a few Exchange server and SQL server boxes, not even the cheapest physical server (circa £1500) costs less than £100 a month to run in reality, once all costs are factored in.

[Goosenka]

Very far from bollocks, in my experience. I run 80 odd co-located servers plus various other bits of network infrastructure in a data centre in London and another one in Dublin. Even using primarily opensource OS'es and software, bar a few Exchange server and SQL server boxes, not even the cheapest physical server (circa £1500) costs less than £100 a month to run in reality, once all costs are factored in.

Agree

My hosting fees are about £120 a month. They are bad asses as well and did me a deal.

It really is not as cheap as you think. Factoring in the staff and issues to fix....

[CocoPops]

I don't doubt that the database for this site is particularly small either.

[techieboy]

BTW, that's not me arguing against any kind of clarity/accounting for where the fees have gone/are going to. Just that there's a big difference between paying some hosting re-seller £10 a month for a slice of a virtual machine that might be shared with many others and dedicated kit with real SLA's.

[WillT]

As much as I've signed up Patridge has a point and shouldn't be dismissed like he has been. It would be good for some accountability for how this new icome is being spent. At present we're just handing it over.

The figures I seen in the last thread on running costs are just bollocks. As much as we all love this site and its content has sentimental value. Anyone who has worked with enterprise systems knows the hardware required to run this site is minimal and has already been bought back down the line. So we're paying ongoing license costs for software?

Yes the hardware is paid for, however I paid for it... So should I write it off now? Regardless of when that piece of hardware was bought, it was still bought for this site. Its shortly moving to a new system, again I bought this. Its moving because there are obviously a few issues with this current server. It does require its own piece of hardware believe it or not. Its a fairly active board and there are a LOT of threads/posts which take up resources.

Current hardware specs are Quad 2.4 with 8GB Mem and raided disks and even now load can be up as far as 16 on a busy day.

I spent X amount on the site. I've already bought the site, but do I write this off simply because I've already paid for it?

The key here is that this site is here for your entertainment and information. I've not limited this information nor your access to the site. I've simply added a form of revenue and a way for members not to see this form of revenue. It is totally optional for the user to spend any money. They are giving back to the fact that I've spent a large portion of my own money to keep this site running. I appreciate that.

If I still had all the companies I did 4 years ago and was making the same sort of $$, I would have no issue with keeping things as they were. But needs must and all, I can't just have things costing me money, they need to cover themselves.

[WillT]

I'd also like to point out that the server this forum sits on currently is a Dell R300. This was a brand new server. Now thats a £2500 piece of kit. I can assure you that the subscriptions will not even come close to that for this year alone. Then I have to rack that server, and with the cost of power in data centres now-a-days I'm paying approx £60 just for this to be racked up. Then the bandwidth (pretty much negligible) but I don't have anywhere near the bandwidth I had years ago so my cost is way higher than it was. Now we have a backup server, it has to be there to be backed up too. Regardless that this backup server is used for other things, its still a requirement for VX220 and the information that we store. License fees for Invision board are paid on a quarterly basis. We keep on top of all the server upgrades (not forum upgrades), this is time.

[WillT]

I'm perfectly willing to show a breakdown of costs vs incomes after the first year. I would like to think that the site can break even, but I expect you'll be suprised. There is nothing to be hidden and I'm perfectly happy to be open about it, but obviously its hard to tell exactly where we stand so we'll have to see in a years time.

[Pidgeon]

Whilst appreciating your transparency and communication, you are telling us you aquired a capital asset that has provided no return so far, in fact has required continued investment to maintain. The initial purchase price and running costs all borne without prospect of a return. I doubt anyone has paid the fee for the content, it is to maintain what we value. IMO, best way to do that is for the interested parties (us) to own the assets and then any fee can be directly correlated to the costs and fairly distributed.

[techieboy]

Can I have the R300 when you're done with it Will? It'll look good parked on top of the R510 that's been sat in my study since December waiting for me to do something with it.

[JG]

There are number of fairly significant challenges with that Andrew: 1- its going to cost a lot more than £12 to the 80 or so people that have shown interest in supporting the site. 2- Can you imagine the adminstration of 80 people having their say on something. We'd be forever talking about managing the site rather than silly plastic cars 3-My guess is that the site would have a far greater chance of being lost in your model. 4-Its not on offer anyway at the moment.

[WillT]

i did think about that route, but can you honestly see it working? It would be a bloody nightmare. Even between just a few people, what happens if someone decides they want it hosted somewhere else? Or someone wants a specific module enabled. It would be a nightmare. It simply wouldn't work. Don't think I didn't consider this, as I did. The marjority are happy with the current situation, so there is no reason to change it. I can't keep everyone happy I'm afraid, but I go back to my previous thread. The key is here that you can still access content and use the site completely free of charge. If you aren't happy with how I've set things up, well I'm sorry.

[Pidgeon]

Although I earnestly disagree that democracy does not work, there's nothing more to be said. I'll blame Thorney for selling it to you, that's his purpose in life.

[WillT]

I think it would be unwise to hand this site off to a group of people on the off chance it'll succeed! Everything I've done in the last few years has been for the good of the forum, and I think the fact we are all still here should count for something. Its easy to be negative and believe it could be run better when the responsibility isn't actually lying with you as a person. This isn't directed at any one individual, but just as a generalised comment.

[Mike (Cliffie)]

And you get to see naked pictures of Slidborg

[Craig S]

I guess if it became a proper club with the users as owners it would have a committee that would take the decisions, with that you still get problems when making decisions as some people will always complain. A single owner as we have now has the same issues but only 1 person takes the flack not the committee. To say moving it off to a club and it would not succeed I think is a little unfair as some people on the site are very dedicated and I am sure it would continue as it has been, that said I have no issue with how it is being run at the moment and it is way better now that it ever was under the previous owner where posts would be removed. Just my 2p

[WillT]

Yes I probably shouldn't say it wouldn't work, thats unfair. I just think that it wouldn't be easy, and its taking a chance on something that might not pan out so well. So at that point, we ask why would we change what works.

[CocoPops]

Committee or no committee.... I doubt we could raise the fee that Will paid to Thorney.

[JG]

Although I earnestly disagree that democracy does not work, there's nothing more to be said.

I'll blame Thorney for selling it to you, that's his purpose in life.

I think you're being disingenuous Andrew, because you're using evocative terms like democracy without thinking about the process or consequence of it.

Democracy involves politics (more so than there are now), politicians, votes, winners, loosers and acrimony.

This site is a resource for talking about VX220s. It is owned by one person, who has three adminstration assitants and half a dozen or so moderators to help. Those nine people have the best interests of the site and its members as their core value. Nothing on here is editted. Every member has a say. We're as close to a democracy if you want to use the term as we can be without all the problems highlighted above. We've come a long long way from the dark days of Thorney ownership, the fights, the commercial disputes, lets try not to go back there.

[Pidgeon]

Nineteen Eighty-Four I'll take a pill.

[Mike (Cliffie)]

There are number of fairly significant challenges with that Andrew:

1- its going to cost a lot more than £12 to the 80 or so people that have shown interest in supporting the site. I'd have paid twice that

2- Can you imagine the adminstration of 80 people having their say on something. We'd be forever talking about managing the site rather than silly plastic cars. Count me out, I am too disinterested in the running of things and too busy to care.

3-My guess is that the site would have a far greater chance of being lost in your model.

4-Its not on offer anyway at the moment.