Author Topic: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM  (Read 4641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline
*
FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« on: February 20, 2022, 08:42:47 PM »
Hi, I have been using CWP for about a year now, bought pro-licence, Pro support tickets, and CWP pro license, it is one of the best products with the fastest support from the CWP team. As of today, I am happy with the whole team as if all this is made out of love then it is unconditional. I would like us to share as a community what can we do to support, or what can i and my team really do to support the team.

I think it makes more sense to put together our efforts instead of shouting bad words to the team when you can't even understand the value of software you're accessing for free.

For my Opinion, CWP pro license should be maybe 60$ to add up more energy in supporting the team working on the project. Any thoughts?

Offline
***
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2022, 08:01:21 PM »
For my Opinion, CWP pro license should be maybe 60$

I usually try to write something positive first before I write my criticism, but this time I can't help by feeling some deception here with your way of introducing the topic and then goes on to suggesting this ridiculous idea. I get the feeling that this seems like an insider who is trying to push the idea of increasing the pro license price without getting backlash....

- CWP isnt viable with the free license. So, let us forget about the "free CWP". CWP is only worth it with the pro license.
- It's worth it because of its low price.

CWP has multiple types of licenses which is mainly divided into two categories: There is a license for usage for the pro version, and then there is a license for getting pro support.

You are saying that you are paying for both. So why are you suggesting to push the license of the pro support down our throats by combining both into one?

CWP already has a donation system. So if you are interested in paying more, you go ahead and use that.

By the way, you registered on this forum on end of July of 2021 and your first post is at end of October. So how did you count a full year withing this time frame? You probably haven't even got your second invoice for the second year of the pro license.

Here's my two cents: If the price for CWP license becomes inviable. I would definitely be looking for another panel.

p.s. I do appreciate all the help the staff is already giving to non pro-support users by for example responding to bug reports.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2022, 08:13:09 PM by iraqiboy90 »

Offline
*
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2022, 03:09:22 PM »
Hello, I'm not in any way an insider, just a guy running a business inside East Africa, and I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend or make anyone feel bad, it's just pure opinion.

And remove negative thoughts because at least 30$ is for a year is not much, not a month if you don't see my post so much I read from pre-asked questions by others or documentation, and my computer science master's helps me write less in the forum. I paid pro support the same day I bought it. cwp forum account and account I use for the license are two different.

All I'm saying is we need to get more features from cwp team and it will be more interesting if they'll be coming quick, I think if they rely on donations it won't be effective because donations are unpredictable. Also, i didn't know if they have a donation feature, they should keep it kind of more visible because as the Panel delays updates, the bad guys get time to study it, and sometimes in the future, it might become useless.

Offline
***
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2022, 04:09:39 PM »
CWP already has the most important features built in. What features are you looking for that only an increase in license cost will bring them to the table?

I don't agree with the problem that CWP updates are delayed for testing, but I do agree that it's a problem delaying with security updates.

For me, 30$ is too much. The current pricing is fine for me

Offline
***
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2022, 12:38:39 PM »
I had the Pro upgrade but will not renew.   I had more problems with the server running pro than with the other server that was not running pro.  Just my humble opinion.
Listen to everything Pixelpadre says.

Offline
*****
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2022, 02:59:11 PM »
hello
what were these problems?

Offline
***
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2022, 06:33:48 PM »
It was a year ago more or less.  I spun up a centos8 stream on a server and had problems everywhere I looked.  I can't point out to cause and effect.   I pulled the plug and went back to centos 7 and no pro where I remain today.
Listen to everything Pixelpadre says.

Offline
***
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2022, 06:34:59 PM »
hello
what were these problems?

Odd that you should respond to my post about Pro, but ignored my other posts.
Listen to everything Pixelpadre says.

Offline
*****
Re: FUNDING CWP DEVELOPMENT TEAM
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2023, 11:32:09 PM »
I think the current pricing is fair -- esp. when compared to cPanel's pricing tiers (and the overall quality assurance difference) -- but it depends on the # of sites on your server -- to make an economical comparison. My experience over the last 3+ years has been generally good and worth the 3x Pro licenses I carry, along with the 2x paid support tickets (worth it during a cPanel server migration). But there have been headaches and road blocks along the way that cause me to hesitate thinking it is worth more $$ per year, across the board. As suggested, if you are having a fabulous experience with CWP and think it worth it, feel free to donate. For me, I am donating my time and sending back bug reports and contributing to this forum. I also hope to contribute to the wiki & documentation, as there is a lot of updating and spit-n-polish that needs to be done to fill in some of the gaps there.