• Welcome to the Chevereto user community!

    Here users from all over the world gather around to learn the latest about Chevereto and contribute with ideas to improve the software.

    Please keep in mind:

    • 😌 This community is user driven. Be polite with other users.
    • 👉 Is required to purchase a Chevereto license to participate in this community (doesn't apply to Pre-sales).
    • 💸 Purchase a Pro Subscription to get access to active software support and faster ticket response times.

New here - is this really the attitude of the chevereto staff?

abda53

abda53

Chevereto Member
https://chevereto.com/community/threads/separate-css-js-and-or-webfont-from-cdn.8267/

"Get used to it. When you use a CDN you need to manually purge stuff or append a timestamp string to force re-cache.

In every update Chevereto changes the timestamp of those, allowing the cache to refresh but in your case you will need to do it manually, is called development and production website because of a gold reason."

Really? This is a horrible mindset, especially from a staff member.. and an awful and misleading response. Is this really the mindset of chevereto?? because if it is, I'm taking my business elsewhere.
 
Why is it misleading, the author is merely making the point that it can be a nuisance and that you'll come across that problem frequently if you work with software and CDN's.

If you've just dropped in to the forum then I could see how the comment may seem a little brash, however the OP replies frequently to many of the active members so I would say it's just online banter. Also bear in mind that english is not the first language here so you need take that into account. If we express something in a different language it does not always come across as we meant it. 😉
 
If it helps, I never said "get used" in the form of "I don't care, fuck you". My comment was about how a external service (CDN) misuse causes unnecessary development (disable CDN on these resources could be easily avoided if you create an ignore list in your CDN). I'm against develop stuff to avoid this kind of laziness. True, is just a small feature but in an ocean of missing features and me being the only guy developing this thing I've to be careful in which stuff I pick for development time.

You shouldn't buy it at all if that troubles you that much. Sure, I could be less bitter but I always fail in hide my current emotions on each reply, maybe I just don't suit for being behind the counter. I should do just like everyone else, put a layer between clients and me so this becomes a real business and not this weird image hosting initiative. Several external stuff affects me so bad that sometimes I feel shame of how I communicate and I'm sorry but the harm is already made and I know myself and I know that it will keep happening while I'm in this loop.

I try to communicate with the people of this forum as my peers, not as a target consumer. Sadly, external stuff get me very upset or annoyed that I came out with that kind of stupid reply. Yeah, the reply was wrong because I could say basically what I said in the first paragraph of this reply rather than just shout like a grumpy man. Sometimes I don't realize that I have way more experience and trivial stuff could be something completely new for someone.

Anyway, buy it or not thanks for taking the time to spoke about this.
 
Not a problem, I definitely understand the language difference and having to deal with customers.. I just personally don't feel that it's the place of a developer of how someone should use a script - especially if it's being hosted on the customers server.. for example, you say you don't want to add zip functionality because it might put a strain on the server? That's true.. it potentially can... but it's also not your server and not your place to say how a person should use your script. There are also alternative ways to solve that request... why not offer an additional field where people can upload a zip (or enter an external link) to the archive?

Just my thought as a fellow developer. 🙂
 
Doesn't matter if you have a big or small server. A functionality that could be potentially exploited (ddos) cannot be added until we find a safe way to provide such functionality. As Chevereto is currently "locked", new functionality gets added on my discretion and I don't want to deal with this problem because is not priority at all. Any potential pitfall is unacceptable and as a matter of fact, latest release (3.10.13) fixes a potential ddos. All the time I'm fixing these and it will be a step back to add stuff that could be exploited to hang your server.

I understand the frustration of not getting the actual stuff that you want to see in the software and the fact that you can talk directly to me and get a negative answer is even more annoying isn't? That's why V4 will be completely open source and everyone will be able to create and distribute their own plugins and even make money out of it.
 
Nice.. and yeah, I definitely agree with you.

There is a very simple way to lock it down and prevent abuse... make the zip permission based, or allow additional fields for external downloading. Simple. 🙂
 
abda53 said:
There is a very simple way to lock it down and prevent abuse... make the zip permission based, or allow additional fields for external downloading. Simple. 🙂
Click to expand...

The problem are the high resources needed for all the operations in such task. Albums are dynamic and pictures could be hosted in a very large array of different storage servers. Basically, you need to grab a bunch of images and generate a zip file which must be queued in your server. You also need to get additional storage just to store these generated files (I won't even mention the need for controlled downloads).

Zip album generation is an expensive task and is not trivial to add it in a web script because the web servers used for this are closer to a toy rather than a high grade machine. Maybe 1% of the customers can afford such machinery? Not even I own that kind of server computing.

Maybe a Shared/VPS can fulfill a couple of these request at the time. What about 6? 10? 500?. At Chevereto I always aim for big concurrency and that's where V4 fills the gaps because while I deal with development for big concurrency, third-party devs can work on stuff suited for small and controlled environments where you don't need to care that much anyway.
 
That's true.. except you don't know that the web servers used are more of a toy than a high grade machine. I have a dedicated server that can handle it fine. Most VPS's and cloud servers can handle it.. sure, if you try to multiple zip GB's of files all at once.. that will probably drag the server down.. but that's not really what's being discussed.. are there always worse case scenarios? Sure... but what if you have thousands of people uploading photos at once and the server has to deal with resizing and watermarks all at the same time? Like you said, the majority of the users are not using the site in a professional capacity, so the chance of multiple zip creations would not be that high. 😉

Is there a beta version of v4 out? I would love to take a look at it and do some beta testing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top