Out of Office until Oct 3

[reggie14]

If anyone thinks that a software with bugs isn't finished they need to step back.  This kind of thinking isn't part of the real world.  If it were, we'd all still be running DOS. 

 

I don't expect it to be bug free, but I do expect the developer to work to make forwarding progress fixing the bugs as they are discovered.  Going 22 months without an official release isn't much forward progress. 

 

I figure Tom must have another job that limits the amount of time he can spend developing.  And that's completely fine.  But once he realized he wasn't going to be able to get v5 out the door in a reasonable amount of time he should have patched 4.7.  That's basically how we got v4.7 in the first place, so it's nothing new for him.

[lionelhutz]

FYI, use Elkay14 has created versions of 4.7 with the disk rebuild bug fixed plus some other patches.

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=17644.msg158875#msg158875 is one of the posts. You can also look in the signature for other links to patched versions. Basically, these custom fixes are available here;

 

http://blueskyhorizon.com/unraid/kernel/

 

[sureguy]

I was about to say I don't understand the anger about all this, but if you go to purchase a key, there is no version number included.  And then when you go to download a version the top listed version is an RC.  If memory serves, this is not how it used to be (I remember scrolling down to grab 5.0.14b). 

 

Given the way links, and registration key purchases are now presented, things certainly seem a bit misleading.  It's a little disingenuous to list a beta/RC of your product first (no matter how stable it is) when there is a stable version available. 

 

I don't feel ripped off, and the product does (for me, and several friends) what was promised (all running RCs currently), but I can understand, after looking at the way links are presented on the official website, why some people might feel upset about how the info was presented.

[jaybee]

FYI, use Elkay14 has created versions of 4.7 with the disk rebuild bug fixed plus some other patches.

 

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=17644.msg158875#msg158875 is one of the posts. You can also look in the signature for other links to patched versions. Basically, these custom fixes are available here;

 

http://blueskyhorizon.com/unraid/kernel/

 

 

To my knowledge there are atleast 3 major issues with version 4.7.

JoeL summarised them earlier in this thread (sections copied below). The above linked user modified version of 4.7 fixes only issue (1) of the below, plus it's a user modified/created version. As much as I appreciate this users efforts, it is not the advertised official stable/finished 4.7 product that I and other customers paid for. If it is such a good build, why does Tom/Limetech not sticky the thread? Why does he not make an official version like this with these fixes or or or...? There is again, no commitment from him towards fixing these issues.

 

 

 

"...4.7 has three known bugs that will corrupt data fixed in the 5.0-rc8a release...

 

1.  The bug where a "write" to a disk could be lost during a re-construction or parity calc...

 

2.  The bug where an MBR on existing disks will be overwritten and result in it pointing to the WRONG sector. (this occurs when the super.dat file on the flash drive is rebuilt.... as when a flash drive dies and is replaced)...

 

3.  The bug where a temporary file created on a disk, when renamed to the original name in a user-share other than the original physical disk does not unlink the original file, resulting in a duplicate file error AND the original contents NOT being re-written, leading to potential data loss.  No work-around, the use of temporary files is common on many file transfer/copy programs.  This bug exists on all but the very most recent 5. releases.

 

Joe L."

 

[jaybee]

LIMETECH SAID:

 

"In addition, I will be updating the 4.7 series (to 4.7.1) with the same parity sync bug fix.  Please do not use this thread to request any other changes in 4.7.1 - the decision is already made that the only change from 4.7 to 4.7.1 will be this driver bug fix."

 

on: 07 July 2011, 23:51:06

[lionelhutz]

jaybee - I posted that to help any user who wanted to know, hence the FYI at the start of the post. Posting you don't want to use it and posting arguementive comments about it doesn't accomplish anything useful.

[skank]

Im not going to participate in this debate but just a short question, i need a pro key very urgent, if i order one, will i get response quick? (Less than 2 days)?

[Joe L.]

Im not going to participate in this debate but just a short question, i need a pro key very urgent, if i order one, will i get response quick? (Less than 2 days)?

With rare exceptions, people have reported you will get a response quickly.

[skank]

Im not going to participate in this debate but just a short question, i need a pro key very urgent, if i order one, will i get response quick? (Less than 2 days)?

With rare exceptions, people have reported you will get a response quickly.

 

Cool

Thx

[dalben]

I'm glad this board has an "Ignore User" feature when I see posts talking about lawsuits.  What a ridiculous notion but it does remind me that most of the users here are in the US.

[SidebandSamurai]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

I would like to state a few facts.

 

1.  Unraid is NO LONGER in beta, Unraid has released a version called a Release Candidate.  This means all features are frozen, and we are testing for hardware compatibility, and looking for other operational problems.  If you are still running the beta (like I see in some signatures) you should consider upgrading to the RC version to see if your issues have been resolved.

 

2.  As "Pre-release" testers we should be kept informed as to what current problems exist and when the next RC version will address these problems.  As testers, I don't think we should be kept in the dark as to what the short comings of the software are.  If you are not participating in the Release Candidate program, then  you should be running 4.7, and waiting on the final release.  By downloading and installing the Release Canidate software you are considered participating in the Release candidate program, and thus should be informed as to the progress of fixing certain issues.

 

3.  Users on 4.7 if you have an issue, if you paid for the software, you should contact Lime Technology directly, open up a ticket so that your problem can be addressed immediately.  If you are using the FREE 3 drive version, your only source of support is through these forums.  Please remember that everyone who posts here is considered a volunteer and is not paid by Lime Technology at all.

 

4.  I don't work for Lime Technology, I am just a volunteer.  The above statements are NOT the opinions of Lime Technology, rather just a simple volunteer.

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

The other suggestion is to create a wiki page and do the same thing. then we don't clutter up the forums.

 

I for one have an issue with the current release candidate that has not been addressed.  Not to detract from my comments but to give you an actual example, If you reboot the unraid server from the console, not the web interface, it causes a parity check because the array was shutdown dirty.

 

I found you you need to add custom scripts to make the shutdown from the console work correctly.  Though this is clearly not the correct functionality of the software. Posting this in a Wiki or a special forum as how I suggested above, will alert potential RC users the possible problems and how to avoid them.

 

Or users can choose not to install the software.  I feel release candidates should be released once a month at minimum so that issues are appropriately addressed and tested before release.  The testing program is just that.  Testing, to make sure the software runs as expected.  Making this list of deficiencies is called "setting goals".  Right now I don't see goals being set so that the Release Candidate software can finally become final release.

 

I do agree with posters who report that this has gone on too long.  Maybe its because we have known about this release since Tom posted about it.  A development cycle of two years is not unreasonable.

 

I also agree with posters that that 4.7 needs to be patched.  This is the released and supported version of the software and it is not working as specified.  It should have been continuously supported until the RC version of Version 5 came out.  To not have a patch to the released version of the software I feel is unacceptable.  Just to be clear, version 4 has been patched several times (at least 7) so its not like it has been unsupported at all.  I have ran 4.7 (3) drive version without issue for quite a while, and recently upgraded to the RC so that I can be prepared for the new version.

 

Upgrades to the next new major revision (ie from 4.x to 5.x) are generally not honored in normal commercial software.  Just like when you upgrade the Windows OS from 7 to 8, there is a cost associated for that.  Usually much less than buying it for the first time.  Right now your license (your 4.7 license mind you) works on the RC version because its allowed so that you can test it.  This does not mean you are ENTITLED to version 5 when released.  That is NOT to say that Tom will be nice and let you upgrade for free, but you SHOULD NOT expect it.  Also buyer beware, you should communicate with Tom and ask him if you purchase now, will you be able to upgrade to 5 when its released.  Lots of software companies allow free upgrades when so close to a major revision upgrade.

 

I know I will catch flack for this but I just had to post my thoughts.  Please lets make this constructive and not a flame war.

 

Oh yea, as for the class action suit, only the Lawyers will win in these cases, and I will leave it at that.

 

Sincerely,

 

-- Sideband Samurai

[lostincable]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

I would like to state a few facts.

 

1.  Unraid is NO LONGER in beta, Unraid has released a version called a Release Candidate.  This means all features are frozen, and we are testing for hardware compatibility, and looking for other operational problems.  If you are still running the beta (like I see in some signatures) you should consider upgrading to the RC version to see if your issues have been resolved.

 

2.  As "Pre-release" testers we should be kept informed as to what current problems exist and when the next RC version will address these problems.  As testers, I don't think we should be kept in the dark as to what the short comings of the software are.  If you are not participating in the Release Candidate program, then  you should be running 4.7, and waiting on the final release.  By downloading and installing the Release Canidate software you are considered participating in the Release candidate program, and thus should be informed as to the progress of fixing certain issues.

 

3.  Users on 4.7 if you have an issue, if you paid for the software, you should contact Lime Technology directly, open up a ticket so that your problem can be addressed immediately.  If you are using the FREE 3 drive version, your only source of support is through these forums.  Please remember that everyone who posts here is considered a volunteer and is not paid by Lime Technology at all.

 

4.  I don't work for Lime Technology, I am just a volunteer.  The above statements are NOT the opinions of Lime Technology, rather just a simple volunteer.

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

The other suggestion is to create a wiki page and do the same thing. then we don't clutter up the forums.

 

I for one have an issue with the current release candidate that has not been addressed.  Not to detract from my comments but to give you an actual example, If you reboot the unraid server from the console, not the web interface, it causes a parity check because the array was shutdown dirty.

 

I found you you need to add custom scripts to make the shutdown from the console work correctly.  Though this is clearly not the correct functionality of the software. Posting this in a Wiki or a special forum as how I suggested above, will alert potential RC users the possible problems and how to avoid them.

 

Or users can choose not to install the software.  I feel release candidates should be released once a month at minimum so that issues are appropriately addressed and tested before release.  The testing program is just that.  Testing, to make sure the software runs as expected.  Making this list of deficiencies is called "setting goals".  Right now I don't see goals being set so that the Release Candidate software can finally become final release.

 

I do agree with posters who report that this has gone on too long.  Maybe its because we have known about this release since Tom posted about it.  A development cycle of two years is not unreasonable.

 

I also agree with posters that that 4.7 needs to be patched.  This is the released and supported version of the software and it is not working as specified.  It should have been continuously supported until the RC version of Version 5 came out.  To not have a patch to the released version of the software I feel is unacceptable.  Just to be clear, version 4 has been patched several times (at least 7) so its not like it has been unsupported at all.  I have ran 4.7 (3) drive version without issue for quite a while, and recently upgraded to the RC so that I can be prepared for the new version.

 

Upgrades to the next new major revision (ie from 4.x to 5.x) are generally not honored in normal commercial software.  Just like when you upgrade the Windows OS from 7 to 8, there is a cost associated for that.  Usually much less than buying it for the first time.  Right now your license (your 4.7 license mind you) works on the RC version because its allowed so that you can test it.  This does not mean you are ENTITLED to version 5 when released.  That is NOT to say that Tom will be nice and let you upgrade for free, but you SHOULD NOT expect it.  Also buyer beware, you should communicate with Tom and ask him if you purchase now, will you be able to upgrade to 5 when its released.  Lots of software companies allow free upgrades when so close to a major revision upgrade.

 

I know I will catch flack for this but I just had to post my thoughts.  Please lets make this constructive and not a flame war.

 

Oh yea, as for the class action suit, only the Lawyers will win in these cases, and I will leave it at that.

 

Sincerely,

 

-- Sideband Samurai

 

All this is to far logical for the development cycle and communication channels from unraid. 

 

On a lighter note, what product other than unraid would you recommend that has a strong development cycle and a similar product?

 

Whilst I will stick around I am looking or alternatives......

 

 

[Dougy]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

I would like to state a few facts.

 

1.  Unraid is NO LONGER in beta, Unraid has released a version called a Release Candidate.  This means all features are frozen, and we are testing for hardware compatibility, and looking for other operational problems.  If you are still running the beta (like I see in some signatures) you should consider upgrading to the RC version to see if your issues have been resolved.

 

2.  As "Pre-release" testers we should be kept informed as to what current problems exist and when the next RC version will address these problems.  As testers, I don't think we should be kept in the dark as to what the short comings of the software are.  If you are not participating in the Release Candidate program, then  you should be running 4.7, and waiting on the final release.  By downloading and installing the Release Canidate software you are considered participating in the Release candidate program, and thus should be informed as to the progress of fixing certain issues.

 

3.  Users on 4.7 if you have an issue, if you paid for the software, you should contact Lime Technology directly, open up a ticket so that your problem can be addressed immediately.  If you are using the FREE 3 drive version, your only source of support is through these forums.  Please remember that everyone who posts here is considered a volunteer and is not paid by Lime Technology at all.

 

4.  I don't work for Lime Technology, I am just a volunteer.  The above statements are NOT the opinions of Lime Technology, rather just a simple volunteer.

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

The other suggestion is to create a wiki page and do the same thing. then we don't clutter up the forums.

 

I for one have an issue with the current release candidate that has not been addressed.  Not to detract from my comments but to give you an actual example, If you reboot the unraid server from the console, not the web interface, it causes a parity check because the array was shutdown dirty.

 

I found you you need to add custom scripts to make the shutdown from the console work correctly.  Though this is clearly not the correct functionality of the software. Posting this in a Wiki or a special forum as how I suggested above, will alert potential RC users the possible problems and how to avoid them.

 

Or users can choose not to install the software.  I feel release candidates should be released once a month at minimum so that issues are appropriately addressed and tested before release.  The testing program is just that.  Testing, to make sure the software runs as expected.  Making this list of deficiencies is called "setting goals".  Right now I don't see goals being set so that the Release Candidate software can finally become final release.

 

I do agree with posters who report that this has gone on too long.  Maybe its because we have known about this release since Tom posted about it.  A development cycle of two years is not unreasonable.

 

I also agree with posters that that 4.7 needs to be patched.  This is the released and supported version of the software and it is not working as specified.  It should have been continuously supported until the RC version of Version 5 came out.  To not have a patch to the released version of the software I feel is unacceptable.  Just to be clear, version 4 has been patched several times (at least 7) so its not like it has been unsupported at all.  I have ran 4.7 (3) drive version without issue for quite a while, and recently upgraded to the RC so that I can be prepared for the new version.

 

Upgrades to the next new major revision (ie from 4.x to 5.x) are generally not honored in normal commercial software.  Just like when you upgrade the Windows OS from 7 to 8, there is a cost associated for that.  Usually much less than buying it for the first time.  Right now your license (your 4.7 license mind you) works on the RC version because its allowed so that you can test it.  This does not mean you are ENTITLED to version 5 when released.  That is NOT to say that Tom will be nice and let you upgrade for free, but you SHOULD NOT expect it.  Also buyer beware, you should communicate with Tom and ask him if you purchase now, will you be able to upgrade to 5 when its released.  Lots of software companies allow free upgrades when so close to a major revision upgrade.

 

I know I will catch flack for this but I just had to post my thoughts.  Please lets make this constructive and not a flame war.

 

Oh yea, as for the class action suit, only the Lawyers will win in these cases, and I will leave it at that.

 

Sincerely,

 

-- Sideband Samurai

 

I couldn't agree more regarding your ideas for a dedicated RC forum.  Unfortunately from memory Tom is still set on adding a plugin manager before going final despite many forum member explaining to him that this not appropriate for the RC process.....

 

In regards to purchases and versions....  I purchased "unRAID Server Pro Registration Key 2-Pack"  so as long there is a pro version then I have purchased the rights to use it.  I guess Tom could change the naming for 6x but in regards to 5x, no matter how long ago I purchased this, I believe you are wrong.

[Helmonder]

With respect to:

 

I found you you need to add custom scripts to make the shutdown from the console work correctly.  Though this is clearly not the correct functionality of the software. Posting this in a Wiki or a special forum as how I suggested above, will alert potential RC users the possible problems and how to avoid them.

 

That is not a but. Unraid should be shut down from the webinterface. And as long as you did not add any non Limtech created plugins that will work (if you add plugins it allmost allways works also).

 

Shutting down the array from console is absolutely possible without causing parity errors but you need to know what you are doing. A simple shutdown command will not suffice and in my opinion it is not meant to.

[SidebandSamurai]

.. and the kitties strike again.  Coffee all over the place.  Lost my previous post so here goes:

 

@Helmonder

That is not a but. Unraid should be shut down from the webinterface. And as long as you did not add any non Limtech created plugins that will work (if you add plugins it allmost allways works also).

 

I am not looking for support here, and I want to stay focused on the subject, but to answer this comment, I am running with out plugins right now, and will continue to do so until its officially supported.  The array is shutdown normally from the web interface.  So that functionality does work.  This is because I am forced to stop the array BEFORE shutting down the server.  The web interface does NOT allow me to just simply shutdown the server while the array is up.  This process works because there are times you have to stop the array, in order to perform maintenance on the system without physically shutting down the operating system.

 

Shutting down the array from console is absolutely possible without causing parity errors but you need to know what you are doing. A simple shutdown command will not suffice and in my opinion it is not meant to.

 

This is where you and I differ. Actually a simple shutdown command should automatically and cleanly dismount the array and shutdown the operating system.  ALL operating systems that support mountable file systems support this right out of the box with out even thinking about it.  This is going all the way back to AT&T unix.  Unraid should be no different.  I should not have to modify the operating system to do something I would have expected it to do with normal operating system commands.  This product is meant to be managed from both the console and the web interface.

 

@Dougy;

In regards to purchases and versions....  I purchased "unRAID Server Pro Registration Key 2-Pack"  so as long there is a pro version then I have purchased the rights to use it.

 

I don't know what Toms position is on the Upgrade path.  So I will not speak for him.  I will clarify my point.

 

Example, I purchase Windows 7 Pro when it came out.  I paid $299.99 for it.  Yea its really a high price but stay with me for a moment.  Now Windows 8 Pro has come out.  Based on what you said above, Since I purchased Windows 7 Pro, I should be entitled to get Windows 8 Pro for free.  In the case of Microsoft this is not the case.  With most commercial software offerings this is not the case.

 

I don't know what the upgrade policy is for Lime Technology.  Maybe someone can shed some light on this subject. Were previous major version upgrades free? If they are that is pretty generous of Tom to have that kind of policy.  Look at how much work he has already put into the new version of Unraid 5.0  I don't want to be a fly in the ointment but Tom SHOULD be charging for the upgrade, even at a reduced price.  His time is too valuable not to charge for the upgrade and maybe would be an incentive to finish the product.  Speaking strictly from a business perspective upgrades should be another revenue stream for Lime Technology.

 

My point is that it should NOT be assumed the next revision is free even if it has been in the past  I don't think Tom has said anything about the next version being free or paid.  In my opinion, the upgrades should not be free, and if you want the upgrade with the new features, you should pay for it.  Too much blood sweat and tears have gone into this version not to reap the financial benefits from it.  No one is forcing you to have the latest and greatest.  I also think that if you buy between now and release date then you should expect to get 5.0 with out paying additional money.  But ... that is only my opinion.

 

Another thought has come to mind..  maybe there is a delay in the software release because he has been sourcing out computer parts for the new unraid servers he wants offer, that process can take a long time.  Somewhat like shooting a moving target.

 

--Sideband Samurai

[jaybee]

 

 

All this is to far logical for the development cycle and communication channels from unraid. 

 

On a lighter note, what product other than unraid would you recommend that has a strong development cycle and a similar product?

 

Whilst I will stick around I am looking or alternatives......

 

 

 

Flexraid. Flexraid is a software layer that bolts onto existing operating systems including both Windows and Unix.

 

This is the current main unraid competitor. Flexraid used to be free, but early this year, the Author made a decision to start charging for the software for reasons he has thoroughly explained on his own forum and website. It is still very reasonably priced and similar in costings to unraid. Licencing is not bound to a single USB drive. Flexraid when I looked at it a year or two ago, was in its infancy and was unstable and not polished. The author has changed all this now and a full product is released which looks to be very nice. His forum is buzzing and he constantly replies and updates people from what I can see. He also has a wiki. I haven't looked into it enough recently to know how it compares to unraid, but it is based on the same concept and parity ideas.

 

The Author of flexraid is now looking towards the future and is trying to bring NZFS (Not ZFS) to "compliment" his existing Flexraid products, using some of the exciting features and ideas you may be fimiliar with from ZFS, but in a different way.

 

I probably explained that quite badly and people who know more on Flexraid can please amend any of the above. This is just me trying to give an idea of it. it basically does a similar job to unraid but is not it's own bundled OS....yet....apparently I have read that this may happen.

 

 

 

 

 

[jaybee]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

 

-- Sideband Samurai

 

This has been talked about before and seems to be ignored. In fact, in order to try to facilitate at least some level of keeping things logical and tidy, Limetech added a new sub forum didn't he, named "Unraid OS 5.0-RC". All this did, was give people a place to post issues with any RC version (there have been many already), which caused a completely cluttered forum and things got lost very quickly. It's a minefield in there.

 

What we need is something like the Mantis bug tracking system implemented. This is designed exactly for things like this. An online version of a bug tracking system. Other forums use this to good effect. The author of Flexraid I think uses this as well.

 

Unfortunately the above involves work and effort from Limetech and it feels at the moment like we are not getting any commitment from him at all. We have to assume this as we see no communications on the forums. If he is working hard on something, then he should post to give us an update. No communication is bad communication and every day that goes by with nothing, unraid and the community is rotting away.

[Dougy]

 

 

@Dougy;

In regards to purchases and versions....  I purchased "unRAID Server Pro Registration Key 2-Pack"  so as long there is a pro version then I have purchased the rights to use it.

 

I don't know what Toms position is on the Upgrade path.  So I will not speak for him.  I will clarify my point.

 

Example, I purchase Windows 7 Pro when it came out.  I paid $299.99 for it.  Yea its really a high price but stay with me for a moment.  Now Windows 8 Pro has come out.  Based on what you said above, Since I purchased Windows 7 Pro, I should be entitled to get Windows 8 Pro for free.  In the case of Microsoft this is not the case.  With most commercial software offerings this is not the case.

 

I don't know what the upgrade policy is for Lime Technology.  Maybe someone can shed some light on this subject. Were previous major version upgrades free? If they are that is pretty generous of Tom to have that kind of policy.  Look at how much work he has already put into the new version of Unraid 5.0  I don't want to be a fly in the ointment but Tom SHOULD be charging for the upgrade, even at a reduced price.  His time is too valuable not to charge for the upgrade and maybe would be an incentive to finish the product.  Speaking strictly from a business perspective upgrades should be another revenue stream for Lime Technology.

 

My point is that it should NOT be assumed the next revision is free even if it has been in the past  I don't think Tom has said anything about the next version being free or paid.  In my opinion, the upgrades should not be free, and if you want the upgrade with the new features, you should pay for it.  Too much blood sweat and tears have gone into this version not to reap the financial benefits from it.  No one is forcing you to have the latest and greatest.  I also think that if you buy between now and release date then you should expect to get 5.0 with out paying additional money.  But ... that is only my opinion.

 

Another thought has come to mind..  maybe there is a delay in the software release because he has been sourcing out computer parts for the new unraid servers he wants offer, that process can take a long time.  Somewhat like shooting a moving target.

 

--Sideband Samurai

 

you missed my point entirely. Have a look at the sales page, it hasn't changed much since I made my purchase as far as I can tell.  While I fully understand your argument regarding Windows and lots of other commercial software,  I did not purchase V4.x.  I purchased "unRAID Server Pro Registration Key 2-Pack" 

 

I was led to believe that I was buying a license (or two rather) to use the Pro version of unraid regardless of the version number.

[Dougy]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

 

-- Sideband Samurai

 

This has been talked about before and seems to be ignored. In fact, in order to try to facilitate at least some level of keeping things logical and tidy, Limetech added a new sub forum didn't he, named "Unraid OS 5.0-RC". All this did, was give people a place to post issues with any RC version (there have been many already), which caused a completely cluttered forum and things got lost very quickly. It's a minefield in there.

 

What we need is something like the Mantis bug tracking system implemented. This is designed exactly for things like this. An online version of a bug tracking system. Other forums use this to good effect. The author of Flexraid I think uses this as well.

 

Unfortunately the above involves work and effort from Limetech and it feels at the moment like we are not getting any commitment from him at all. We have to assume this as we see no communications on the forums. If he is working hard on something, then he should post to give us an update. No communication is bad communication and every day that goes by with nothing, unraid and the community is rotting away.

 

unfortunately though there is one sub forum for all of the RC's.  It would have been a lot more useful if there was a separate subforum for each RC....  it would have remained more useful without input from limetech....  right now its a total mess with a lot of posts from people saying I'm still using the beta but.....

 

He did say that he was focused on working out a current hardware solution for unraid to sell.  That's about as good as communication from limetech gets and I would not be surprised if that is were is focus is.  kind of rubs salt in the wound?

[jaybee]

I stumbled on this thread purely by accident.  Saw "Law Suit" and decided to go to the beginning and read the whole thing. 

 

 

Now I want to focus on the lack of communication.  As I stated earlier, those running the Beta or the Release Candidate should be afforded more communication from Lime Technology that is currently provided.  Now I like to be the solution to the problem and not the problem itself, so here is what I suggest.

 

For the Release candidate software, a new forum should be created (I know one already exists but stay with me for a second) called Version 5 release candidate X.  No one is allowed to create new topics, only Lime Technology.  Each topic opened specifies a specific problem with that release candidate.  Users are allowed to post inside of these topics.  After a particular issue has been resolved a new release candidate is released.  With a new release, The whole release candidate forum is closed (or locked) and a new Version 5 RC-Y is opened with any existing issues.  This keeps Lime technology focused on the problems, keeps everyone informed, and problems get resolved.  Only users of the RC software should be allowed to post, how to control that, have a signup page so that they put their forum ID in and the forum security is automatically updated to allow posting to these areas.  All others are allowed to read only.

 

 

-- Sideband Samurai

 

This has been talked about before and seems to be ignored. In fact, in order to try to facilitate at least some level of keeping things logical and tidy, Limetech added a new sub forum didn't he, named "Unraid OS 5.0-RC". All this did, was give people a place to post issues with any RC version (there have been many already), which caused a completely cluttered forum and things got lost very quickly. It's a minefield in there.

 

What we need is something like the Mantis bug tracking system implemented. This is designed exactly for things like this. An online version of a bug tracking system. Other forums use this to good effect. The author of Flexraid I think uses this as well.

 

Unfortunately the above involves work and effort from Limetech and it feels at the moment like we are not getting any commitment from him at all. We have to assume this as we see no communications on the forums. If he is working hard on something, then he should post to give us an update. No communication is bad communication and every day that goes by with nothing, unraid and the community is rotting away.

 

unfortunately though there is one sub forum for all of the RC's.  It would have been a lot more useful if there was a separate subforum for each RC....  it would have remained more useful without input from limetech....  right now its a total mess with a lot of posts from people saying I'm still using the beta but.....

 

He did say that he was focused on working out a current hardware solution for unraid to sell.  That's about as good as communication from limetech gets and I would not be surprised if that is were is focus is.  kind of rubs salt in the wound?

 

Yeah I agree that forums is messy that's what I was trying to say.

And yes, it does rub salt in the wound. That and the fact that Limetech respond to new licence requests kind of stinks of £££ priorities. I don't mind paying for a product or a businessman doing well for the record, but in this situation it feels almost as if existing customers are being laughed at stood in a corner, whilst Limetech's pockets get deeper and deeper.

[joeshmoe1]

 

 

All this is to far logical for the development cycle and communication channels from unraid. 

 

On a lighter note, what product other than unraid would you recommend that has a strong development cycle and a similar product?

 

Whilst I will stick around I am looking or alternatives......

 

 

 

Flexraid. Flexraid is a software layer that bolts onto existing operating systems including both Windows and Unix.

 

This is the current main unraid competitor. Flexraid used to be free, but early this year, the Author made a decision to start charging for the software for reasons he has thoroughly explained on his own forum and website. It is still very reasonably priced and similar in costings to unraid. Licencing is not bound to a single USB drive. Flexraid when I looked at it a year or two ago, was in its infancy and was unstable and not polished. The author has changed all this now and a full product is released which looks to be very nice. His forum is buzzing and he constantly replies and updates people from what I can see. He also has a wiki. I haven't looked into it enough recently to know how it compares to unraid, but it is based on the same concept and parity ideas.

 

The Author of flexraid is now looking towards the future and is trying to bring NZFS (Not ZFS) to "compliment" his existing Flexraid products, using some of the exciting features and ideas you may be fimiliar with from ZFS, but in a different way.

 

I probably explained that quite badly and people who know more on Flexraid can please amend any of the above. This is just me trying to give an idea of it. it basically does a similar job to unraid but is not it's own bundled OS....yet....apparently I have read that this may happen.

 

Flexraid is also a one man show that has experienced similar communication issues in the past.

[WeeboTech]

it does rub salt in the wound. That and the fact that Limetech respond to new licence requests kind of stinks of £££ priorities. I don't mind paying for a product or a businessman doing well for the record, but in this situation it feels almost as if existing customers are being laughed at stood in a corner, whilst Limetech's pockets get deeper and deeper.

 

This is not the case, and it's getting a bit out of hand here.

Limetech's communication does not have the greatest track record. It's been this way for years.

The software has been reliable and it seems that limetech prioritizes support for major failures.

Limetech has help for dealing with new key requests.

I know there was a closed beta for some feature upgrade tests a while back, sit tight people.  We don't know the whole story or the reason for a communication delay.

 

As said in the past, upgrades from version to version have been free.

limetech has not charged for an upgrade in all the years I've been using it.

 

before I get the fanboy defending limtech bull... I'm not fond of how imperfect things are either, but it is what it is.

 

 

I'm going to re-quote an old quote again.

 

You guys all need to calm down.  I should have just named 5.0-beta4 or -beta5, or one of those, "5.0-final".  Code's been solid for a long time, aside from h/w incompatibilities largely beyond my control.  Hopefully latest 3.2.13 linux kernel addresses some of these problems.

 

...[snip]...

 

If you have specific company questions or gripes, please email me directly: [email protected].

 

As for perception of my lack of involvement, rest assured I do nothing but work my ass off, sorry if that's not reflected in constant forum updates.

[brainbone]

I'm going to re-quote an old quote again.

 

You guys all need to calm down.  I should have just named 5.0-beta4 or -beta5, or one of those, "5.0-final".  Code's been solid for a long time, aside from h/w incompatibilities largely beyond my control. 

 

If the latest RC was just labeled "final", then anyone with issues would start to complain about the release of a buggy product, poor support, etc., with worse reactions than he is seeing today.

 

That said, a simple "Still working on things as fast as I can" or "waiting on ____" every few weeks would go a long way to calming people down, though some may not be happy unless he posts what he has for breakfast every day and how many times his dog craps on each walk.

[NAS]

.... though some may not be happy unless he posts what he has for breakfast every day and how many times his dog craps on each walk.

 

To be fair I don't get the impression anyone wants more than basic updates or the released product.

 

This is backed up by the fact that historically even the briefest of updates is universally well received and threads like this one go away for a month+

 

I am not making a case either way I just think its important we dont over emphasis something that isnt actually happening.

[brainbone]

its important we dont over emphasis something that isnt actually happening.

 

I guess I was, unsuccessfully, trying to make the point that he won't be able to make everyone happy.  But yes, he should give minimal updates, and certainly should have in the days following Oct 3rd.