unRAID Server Release 5.0-rc16c Available

[JackBauer]

Most of us have paid our money to lime tech already.  Unraid needs to attract new money to continue.

 

Very true.  And I say this with zero emotion or animosity...

 

The bigger problem is not the delay - he has worked very hard to squash bugs across a  huge platform set that his user base has employed.  It is very challenging; I understand that, I know many of us probably do.

 

The bigger problem is the random acts of silence.  That hurts his credibility with those new customers we all want him to have.

 

This cycle hasn't been very long, just a matter of days (9 or 10 someone said?).  The repetitive nature of silence, followed by progress and communication, celebration by the community, then broad appreciation...  Then the cycle starts all over again.

 

I don't personally feel Tom "owes" me anything.  I greatly appreciate that he will allow me to use V5 for free.

 

My only frustration is that this "vicious cycle" is so easily avoidable.  I'd guess that 90% of the people would be ok if it slipped to 2014, if he was just keeping everyone well briefed.

[drawz]

To me it feels more like a commercial decision to hold back, not a technical one.

 

Tom has brought someone on board, Tom2, to help with the marketing/sales.  The NAS market has changed since unraid launched.  Now if you want to compete it needs to look slick, offer a host of addons, it's basically a home server these days.  That's the market Tom now finds himself playing in.

 

We all need unraid to remain commercially viable enough for Tom to continue to develop it. That's got to be the community and lime tech's number 1 goal.  If his research or read of the market says he needs to release a x.0 release with a Big Bang, sexy new look and plugin manager to gain more traction and sales, then so be it. Given the choice between using an RC for another 6 months but knowing unraid will be around for a few more years, or getting 5.0 Final today with the chance of t being the last ever major release of unraid, I'm happy to wait.

 

Most of us have paid our money to lime tech already.  Unraid needs to attract new money to continue.

 

I agree that times have changed. However, right now the only "final" product available from Lime Tech is 4.7, which doesn't even support drives over 2TB. Right there, he is losing sales. Telling people to use an RC with all of the features you just mentioned missing, just to get support for >2TB sounds terrible to a potential customer. So again, more lost sales. Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

Having 5.0 final with official >2TB support and basic plugin support would be a step forward and create some additional sales NOW. Those sales can support further development. The next release (5.x or 6.x) could focus on making it more of a home server with a plugin manager, slick GUI, etc. I agree 100% it needs those things, but an interim final release with official >2TB support is more important for financial viability. A 5.0 final would also allow plugin authors to make up some of the deficiencies of the base unRAID build without having to deal with a moving target (the constant breakage of plugins with new RCs).

 

If the GUI and plugin manager are essential, increase the cost of an unRAID license by $5-20 and give that money to another developer that can get it done in a timely manner. We also know that the community has been willing to work on this for free if Tom would allow the appropriate API hooks (e.g. SimpleFeatures, unMenu, boxcar, etc.).

 

Alternatively, maybe he needs to start charging for upgrades. This has the secondary benefit of motivating him to actually release new versions with new features. Current license holders could be grandfathered in if needed.

[bkastner]

Most of us have paid our money to lime tech already.  Unraid needs to attract new money to continue.

 

While this is true, personally I think if Tom managed this differently this could change and be far more lucrative for him.

 

There are a number of online products that charge an initial use cost, and then an annual payment to be entitled to the latest upgrades. If Tom was willing to:

 

1) Provide consistent communication

2) Provide a solid list of updates being included in a given release, and stick to it

3) Provide a proper roadmap

4) Stick to his commitments, or at least provide better visibility into his progress (which leads back to #1)

 

If the above were being met I am sure a number of us would be willing to help keep Tom financially viable.

 

If Tom had a model where you buy Unraid (Plus or Pro) then you are entitled to 1 year of upgrades. Additional years of support could cost you $10/$20 depending on your version. This would allow those who are happy where they are to use the product they bought, and those who want the latest and greatest to pay a bit extra to gain those features. If this was being applied retroactively to current users, Tom could release 5.0, offer a year of upgrades to everyone existing and then slide into this model moving forward.

 

I have a couple of products I use structured like this, and have no problem with it. However... it's because I have confidence in the vendor - not so much by what they've done, but by the fact that they don't disappear for weeks/months at a time, and because they don't try and slam last minute features into a product that is 95% baked.

 

I definitely appreciate what Tom has done with Unraid to date, and would be willing to help Tom moving forward, but a whole lot would need to change from the current model. Hopefully the 1 year post-5.0 could be used to regain the trust of the community and show consistent progress to prove Tom can meet commitments and deserves this.

 

I am not one to voluntarily throw away money, but I have no problem supporting the products I use, trust and appreciate. Given the vocal support Tom receives in this forum (and the passion of the detractors) I think there are potentially a lot who may agree with me.

 

All those who keep pushing for release I believe are just trying to keep Tom to his word, and wanting the same 4 things listed above. It's not so much a technical requirements (though there is some of that too), but wanting to trust Tom.

 

I am guessing none of us really know Tom (or very few do), but all of us want him to succeed. I think if Tom was to focus on the above model, the rewards would definitely pay huge dividends to him, help make Unraid far more financially viable, and possibly allow Tom to focus full-time on this and potentially other products (provided this is not a full time job now, which the sporadic communication suggests is not).

 

I am sure not everyone will agree with me, and some will likely complain at the thought of paying even more for Unraid, but I bet there are a lot of others who would agree to this. I am guessing I may find out in the reply comments to this. 

 

[dalben]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

If his reading of the market and research suggest short term pain for long term gain then he needs to do what he feels he needs to do.

 

It's my opinion but when I look at what's happening at the moment that seems to be the most logical assumption.

 

[RockDawg]

I don't personally feel Tom "owes" me anything.

 

I agree.  As far as giving me what I paid for, he owes me nothing more.  unRAID has been way beyond worth what I paid for it.  I don't feel he owes me/us anything, I just wish (and think he should) keep his word or explain when things doon't pregress as he said they would.

 

I greatly appreciate that he will allow me to use V5 for free.

 

 

I agree, but I almost wish he would charge for some upgrades so he would have some added incentive to pick up the pace a bit.

 

My only frustration is that this "vicious cycle" is so easily avoidable.  I'd guess that 90% of the people would be ok if it slipped to 2014, if he was just keeping everyone well briefed.

 

I agree 100%.  While it may not be the truly best solution, I can't for the life of me figure out why he hasn't just repackaged RC16c as 5 Final and been done with it.  Or like you said just keep us informed as to why a deadline has been missed and lay out the game plan moving forward.

[drawz]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

If his reading of the market and research suggest short term pain for long term gain then he needs to do what he feels he needs to do.

 

It's my opinion but when I look at what's happening at the moment that seems to be the most logical assumption.

 

There's at least one sale at stake as I am personally very close to buying a Synology (or installing Xpenology or FreeNAS). unRAID has some very appealing features that I want and have tried to wait patiently for, but my confidence in the product is just not there for me to pay for it at this point.

[Barziya]

Interesting, a post mentioning that Tom 's been working on v.5 for four and a half years gets moved to Bilge very quickly.  Tom may not be here, but censorship on this board is alive and well.  Can we know the mod who's doing that?

 

[drawz]

Interesting, a post mentioning that Tom 's been working on v.5 for four and a half years gets moved to Bilge very quickly.  Tom may not be here, but censorship on this board is alive and well.  Can we know the mod who's doing that?

 

Tom's account shows him active pretty frequently. Just click on his username. Makes it that much more frustrating that we don't get any updates.

[zoggy]

People have lives, and I'm sure that working on documentation eats up a bit of time. Patience people. Put the pitch forks down. We've waited this long. I'd rather wait a bit longer and get a solid release than a rushed one where issues are introduced.

[zoggy]

Tom, I see that we have php included in the core of unraid.

 

testtower:/boot/unmenu# php -v
PHP 5.2.13 (cli) (built: Mar 27 2012 14:28:43)

 

This version is pretty damn old, 25 Feb 2010.. 5.2.x isn't even supported anymore (end of life was 6 Jan 2011).

Any chance of getting it updated before 5.0 goes final?

 

Notable changes on versions, note that we prob should just stick to 5.3.x to eliminate the need of having to do worry about anything getting broken (as 5.4+ would make me think there might be some code that needs updating since some things were removed -- for the sake of security)

 

5.3.X

Namespace support; late static bindings, Jump label (limited goto), Native closures, Native PHP archives (phar), garbage collection for circular references, improved Windows support, sqlite3, mysqlnd as a replacement for libmysql as underlying library for the extensions that work with MySQL, fileinfo as a replacement for mime_magic for better MIME support, the Internationalization extension, and deprecation of ereg extension.

 

5.4.X

Trait Support, short array syntax support. Removed items: register_globals, safe_mode, allow_call_time_pass_reference, session_register(), session_unregister() and session_is_registered(). Built-in web server*. Several improvements to existing features, performance and reduced memory requirements.

* The CLI SAPI web server is designed for developmental purposes only, and should not be used in production.

 

5.5.X

Generators, Zend Optimizer+

 

Latest 5.3.x is 5.3.27 from July 11th 2013.

Change Log: http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php#5.3.27

 

I know how much you wanna stay with official 13.x versions, so here you go:

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/slackware/n/php-5.3.6-i486-6.txz

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/patches/packages/php-5.3.27-i486-1_slack13.37.txz

 

[graywolf]

Tom, I see that we have php included in the core of unraid.

 

testtower:/boot/unmenu# php -v
PHP 5.2.13 (cli) (built: Mar 27 2012 14:28:43)

 

This version is pretty damn old, 25 Feb 2010.. 5.2.x isn't even supported anymore (end of life was 6 Jan 2011).

Any chance of getting it updated before 5.0 goes final?

 

Notable changes on versions, note that we prob should just stick to 5.3.x to eliminate the need of having to do worry about anything getting broken (as 5.4+ would make me think there might be some code that needs updating since some things were removed -- for the sake of security)

 

5.3.X

Namespace support; late static bindings, Jump label (limited goto), Native closures, Native PHP archives (phar), garbage collection for circular references, improved Windows support, sqlite3, mysqlnd as a replacement for libmysql as underlying library for the extensions that work with MySQL, fileinfo as a replacement for mime_magic for better MIME support, the Internationalization extension, and deprecation of ereg extension.

 

5.4.X

Trait Support, short array syntax support. Removed items: register_globals, safe_mode, allow_call_time_pass_reference, session_register(), session_unregister() and session_is_registered(). Built-in web server*. Several improvements to existing features, performance and reduced memory requirements.

* The CLI SAPI web server is designed for developmental purposes only, and should not be used in production.

 

5.5.X

Generators, Zend Optimizer+

 

Latest 5.3.x is 5.3.27 from July 11th 2013.

Change Log: http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php#5.3.27

 

I know how much you wanna stay with official 13.x versions, so here you go:

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/slackware/n/php-5.3.6-i486-6.txz

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/patches/packages/php-5.3.27-i486-1_slack13.37.txz

 

And the scope creep continues

 

[zoggy]

Tom, I see that we have php included in the core of unraid.

 

testtower:/boot/unmenu# php -v
PHP 5.2.13 (cli) (built: Mar 27 2012 14:28:43)

 

This version is pretty damn old, 25 Feb 2010.. 5.2.x isn't even supported anymore (end of life was 6 Jan 2011).

Any chance of getting it updated before 5.0 goes final?

 

Notable changes on versions, note that we prob should just stick to 5.3.x to eliminate the need of having to do worry about anything getting broken (as 5.4+ would make me think there might be some code that needs updating since some things were removed -- for the sake of security)

 

5.3.X

Namespace support; late static bindings, Jump label (limited goto), Native closures, Native PHP archives (phar), garbage collection for circular references, improved Windows support, sqlite3, mysqlnd as a replacement for libmysql as underlying library for the extensions that work with MySQL, fileinfo as a replacement for mime_magic for better MIME support, the Internationalization extension, and deprecation of ereg extension.

 

5.4.X

Trait Support, short array syntax support. Removed items: register_globals, safe_mode, allow_call_time_pass_reference, session_register(), session_unregister() and session_is_registered(). Built-in web server*. Several improvements to existing features, performance and reduced memory requirements.

* The CLI SAPI web server is designed for developmental purposes only, and should not be used in production.

 

5.5.X

Generators, Zend Optimizer+

 

Latest 5.3.x is 5.3.27 from July 11th 2013.

Change Log: http://www.php.net/ChangeLog-5.php#5.3.27

 

I know how much you wanna stay with official 13.x versions, so here you go:

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/slackware/n/php-5.3.6-i486-6.txz

http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/slackware-13.37/patches/packages/php-5.3.27-i486-1_slack13.37.txz

 

And the scope creep continues

 

you'd have to agree that updating a core package is a bit different than asking for a whole feature to be added. but im probably just feeding the troll here.

[zoggy]

Someone was going to put together a script that would test your system and determine the "best" set of tunables.  Cant remember who it was or what happened to that project though.

 

I'd be interested in this if it exists. The whole set and run a parity check to see is not a very efficient solution. Thats a lot of wear and tear.. let alone wasted time.

[TheDragon]

I am sure not everyone will agree with me, and some will likely complain at the thought of paying even more for Unraid, but I bet there are a lot of others who would agree to this. I am guessing I may find out in the reply comments to this. 

 

I for one would be perfectly happy with the model you suggested in your post!

 

On another note, I thought this thread was meant to be solely related to bugs etc in the current version - is this discussion not getting a bit off topic?

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[graywolf]

 

 

And the scope creep continues

 

you'd have to agree that updating a core package is a bit different than asking for a whole feature to be added. but im probably just feeding the troll here.

 

I'm just saying, who knows what other issues changing php would bring and therefore even further delays.

 

Me, I could care less what it is named, but for others, there are very good reasons. (some are business reasons).

 

It does get frustrating when told no more major changes/bugs, just working on documentation...will be out soon

 

Since then:

1. New GUI (how is that core?) which has caused some issues....time to troubleshoot/fix

2. Package Manager - don't even have the foundations (workflow) decided upon and already started building the skyscraper (seems not even half baked to me)

 

so when you bring up updating php....that is where I brought up scope creep.

 

As far as unRaid (not talking plugins/add-ons) is concerned...what does it matter what php it is using? Does it even use php? (I honestly don't know) Is anything BROKEN with the current php?  If not, then it can wait until 5.1

[Frank1940]

 

<<< snip >>>

Does it even use php? (I honestly don't know) Is anything BROKEN with the current php?

<<< snip>>>

 

See here for what php is:

 

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

 

 

[Zen]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

[JackBauer]

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As far as other solutions - We already have 4TB HD's readily available, and supposedly (in 2H) 2014, we'll see 6TB hard drives.

 

If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I'd build a file server.  I think I'd use individual drives with cold storage mirrored backups.

 

 

[vl1969]

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As far as other solutions - We already have 4TB HD's readily available, and supposedly (in 2H) 2014, we'll see 6TB hard drives.

 

If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I'd build a file server.  I think I'd use individual drives with cold storage mirrored backups.

 

Well a file server gives you a bit more than a backup.

It gives you an instant access to your data all the time while protectig it from disaster at the same time.

Also, how would you do the mirroring? If it is realtime its still a file server setup IMHO.

 

As for other solutuion availability,  yoy can always go with ZFS or what ever it called.  It is mature and prooven. Works great or so I have heard,  and gives you same or better data protection than unraid.

 

One caviet is it is more strict with disks setup. And if you are reading file on one disk the whole set must spin up. If you can leave with it , there is your alternative right there.

 

 

 

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[distracted]

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As far as other solutions - We already have 4TB HD's readily available, and supposedly (in 2H) 2014, we'll see 6TB hard drives.

 

If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I'd build a file server.  I think I'd use individual drives with cold storage mirrored backups.

 

File Server != Backups

[p.totton]

+100

 

This is a very balanced post with good suggestions I really hope both Tom's take the time to read it.

 

Most of us have paid our money to lime tech already.  Unraid needs to attract new money to continue.

 

While this is true, personally I think if Tom managed this differently this could change and be far more lucrative for him.

 

There are a number of online products that charge an initial use cost, and then an annual payment to be entitled to the latest upgrades. If Tom was willing to:

 

1) Provide consistent communication

2) Provide a solid list of updates being included in a given release, and stick to it

3) Provide a proper roadmap

4) Stick to his commitments, or at least provide better visibility into his progress (which leads back to #1)

 

If the above were being met I am sure a number of us would be willing to help keep Tom financially viable.

 

If Tom had a model where you buy Unraid (Plus or Pro) then you are entitled to 1 year of upgrades. Additional years of support could cost you $10/$20 depending on your version. This would allow those who are happy where they are to use the product they bought, and those who want the latest and greatest to pay a bit extra to gain those features. If this was being applied retroactively to current users, Tom could release 5.0, offer a year of upgrades to everyone existing and then slide into this model moving forward.

 

I have a couple of products I use structured like this, and have no problem with it. However... it's because I have confidence in the vendor - not so much by what they've done, but by the fact that they don't disappear for weeks/months at a time, and because they don't try and slam last minute features into a product that is 95% baked.

 

I definitely appreciate what Tom has done with Unraid to date, and would be willing to help Tom moving forward, but a whole lot would need to change from the current model. Hopefully the 1 year post-5.0 could be used to regain the trust of the community and show consistent progress to prove Tom can meet commitments and deserves this.

 

I am not one to voluntarily throw away money, but I have no problem supporting the products I use, trust and appreciate. Given the vocal support Tom receives in this forum (and the passion of the detractors) I think there are potentially a lot who may agree with me.

 

All those who keep pushing for release I believe are just trying to keep Tom to his word, and wanting the same 4 things listed above. It's not so much a technical requirements (though there is some of that too), but wanting to trust Tom.

 

I am guessing none of us really know Tom (or very few do), but all of us want him to succeed. I think if Tom was to focus on the above model, the rewards would definitely pay huge dividends to him, help make Unraid far more financially viable, and possibly allow Tom to focus full-time on this and potentially other products (provided this is not a full time job now, which the sporadic communication suggests is not).

 

I am sure not everyone will agree with me, and some will likely complain at the thought of paying even more for Unraid, but I bet there are a lot of others who would agree to this. I am guessing I may find out in the reply comments to this. 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dalben]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As stated earlier, it looks like lime tech have decided some short term delayed sales is the price to pay for increased sales with a slick Big Bang release 5.0

 

If Toms livelihood depends on people who despite a tested and supported version of his software in RC that supports a potential users needs, refuse to buy but prefer to huff and puff in a forum because it hasn't been branded "final", then he might as well shut up shop now.

[drawz]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As stated earlier, it looks like lime tech have decided some short term delayed sales is the price to pay for increased sales with a slick Big Bang release 5.0

 

If Toms livelihood depends on people who despite a tested and supported version of his software in RC that supports a potential users needs, refuse to buy but prefer to huff and puff in a forum because it hasn't been branded "final", then he might as well shut up shop now.

 

Unless you have insider info somehow, you too are speculating. An update from Tom explaining this plan, if it is indeed what is going on, would at least let us know what to expect and garner significant goodwill.

[dalben]

Every day without 5.0 final results in lost sales.

 

That's an opinion, not fact, despite the bold.

 

Actually it is a fact.  I'm not purchasing licenses until there's an official release with >2TB support.  And if I find a better solution elsewhere in the meantime, then the opportunity to gain me as a customer will be lost.  That's the long and short of it.

 

As stated earlier, it looks like lime tech have decided some short term delayed sales is the price to pay for increased sales with a slick Big Bang release 5.0

 

If Toms livelihood depends on people who despite a tested and supported version of his software in RC that supports a potential users needs, refuse to buy but prefer to huff and puff in a forum because it hasn't been branded "final", then he might as well shut up shop now.

 

Unless you have insider info somehow, you too are speculating. An update from Tom explaining this plan, if it is indeed what is going on, would at least let us know what to expect and garner significant goodwill.

 

Yes, precisely, I have always said its my opinion.  I'm not the one dressing opinion as fact on this thread.

[bmfrosty]

This thread is pretty darn toxic.  Wow. 

 

Pretty big change for me.  Difference between a small commercial project and a small open-source project I guess.  The open source project can become toxic, but usually blows up, forks, or the dissenters (if they're not doing anything useful) get booted off.  Or whatever.