Open Source Design in risk? 184
Stylissimo writes "OSWD.org, the biggest source for free open source web templates, has been offline for several weeks, which has caused a dilemma for the large number of webmasters who rely on open source design. While some of the OSWD.org designers are doing their best to keep the open source design scene alive, others are worried that the absence of OSWD.org will hit the internet hard and maybe even kill the scene. Aaron Nikula, administrator of OSWD.org, has published a statement about the situation and the site may be back again."
For once (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For once (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For once (Score:3, Funny)
I can't believe this (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can't believe this (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:I can't believe this (Score:5, Informative)
***
Hello everyone, I'm Aaron "MonkeyMan" Nikula, I've been running OSWD for the past 3 years, so here's your authoritative explanation.
On Oct 13th our site was displaying a "Forbidden" error. We tried to contact our host (phpwebhosting.com), but despite our "emergency" support ticket it took them a week to reply to it and they do not have a phone support number. Turns out they had attempted to contact us through an email address that Frank used to create an account years ago. After all that was sorted out it turns out they disabled our account because the website was crashing their server. They have 196 users on that machine, 92 mysqld threads, and 33 apache threads, so I think we just used up too many resources for a shared (and cheap) host.
Regardless, none of that has anything to do with the problems we're having now. A little bit of OSWD history first. OSWD was started by Frank Skettino about 4 years ago. I joined 1 month after the project was created (before we even had the OSWD.org domain) and that's when I started writing PHP code for the project. After a while (months) Frank started doing less and less and I started picking up slack. I think I've written 95% of the code that was running the website. I also maintained the website. About 50% of the designs were approved by me, 45% by various volunteers (Josh, Josh, Locke, and Skatters to name a few), and 5% were done by Frank in the early days. In fact, when I had to take a trip and was away from the internet for about 4 months, nobody maintained the site. There were hundreds of designs in the queue and nobody approved them until I got back. I also started the OSWD design contests, in fact (as Josh mentioned) we were in the middle of one when the site went down.
After OSWD started to gain some steam Frank decided to add our first commercial venture. He added the template monster affiliate program to the website. It has been criticized in the past by our members because it's not open source and people confused them with our free designs. I think it's worth noting that he never told anyone how much money he made and he didn't share the money. He was paying for the hosting, so I was fine with that (although our hosting cost was $10/month, I can assure you he was making more than that).
So, back to the present: all these things were making me upset. When the site went down I thought it would be a nice time to ask Frank to pass the website to me for the benefit of the project. He hasn't talked to me since. Also, I don't have access to OSWD or access to my email account. OSWD DOES have new hosting, the transfer was done 2 weeks ago. The problem is that Frank won't do the work to bring it back up. There are no technical problems anymore, he's just sitting on it. Also, he won't give the project to anyone else to do it for him, I think because he wants to keep as much control on the website as possible.
So that's what's happening guys. I really appreciate all the offers of hosting, but that's not the issue here. And really, unless Frank gives up the website, there's not a whole lot I can do help. Hope that clears things up!
Then fork (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason why there should be at least two independent people in charge of open source projects.
Re:Then fork (Score:2)
Hosting (Score:2)
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:I can't believe this (Score:2)
--Rob
Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2, Insightful)
So it goes.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never even heard of them until today. Maybe it's an exposure problem i.e. Not enough?
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Thing is, every time I look for templates I search for 'web templates', 'css templates' or something of that nature. I wouldn't search 'Web Design' unless I was actually looking for a web designer, thus I've never heard of them either, until today.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
If you had read the article, you'd have seen that apparently, the guy who registered the domain a few years ago, and is now out of the picture, doesn't want to turn over the domain to the people who have been doing the heavy lifting for the last while.
Moral of the story - if you're doing a lot of work on something, make sure the contact info is up to date, or you can end up having your work "hijacked".
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really a funding problems? Sounds more like a lame technical screw up soap opera.
Why is this on Slashdot? Some random site has some problems, and that gets a Slashdot front-page story? The fact that they have "open source" in their name doesn't quite merit it. And I love the popup-prevention-circumvention popups at the forum link included in the submission. Nice.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:1)
After OSWD started to gain some steam Frank decided to add our first commercial venture. He added the template monster affiliate program to the website. It has been criticized in the past by our members because it's not open source and people confused them with our free designs. I think it's worth noting that he never told anyone how much money he made and he didn't share the money. He was paying for the hosting, so I was fine with that (although our hosting cost was $10/month, I can a
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:1)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
I agree with the parent, Frank seems to just be being rather lazy and negligent, being that he refuses to fork over the (OS) project to Aaron but also refuses to do any work on his own. He should give a catagorical "NO!", and then DO SOMETHING, or cede all costs an
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Quite frankly OSWD.org was/is the best free web template website i've found. It has/had a nice little community, an neat interface and creative contributors who actually cared about standards like XHTML and CSS.
You insensitive clod.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
I have used templates before, but going with the OS model, I HEAVILY modify them for my own ends, until they are pretty much nothing like what they started as. And actually that is how I cut my teeth on HTML/design is finding the design I wanted, looking at the source, and ripping it apart until it does what I want. Only after that did I develop an aesthetic and style for myself.
Its like art classes, first you study art
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Need inspiration?
Go or [dezwozhere.com]here [dezwozhere.com]
Lots of css goodness, examples, downloadable stuff, etc.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Have you downloaded the 3DO port of SCII? It makes me feel young again, sadly it doesn't have the huge honking map of hyperspace/space.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Most site's need only the graphics and colors of their template changed from one of maybe three basic designs so it makes sense to reuse most of that code and to just change what needs
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:1)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Now all the individual contributors likely have copies of their templates and many people may have at least a handful they downloaded b
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
Apparently he does have a copy. [sitepoint.com]
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:4, Informative)
The cut-n-pasted statement in an above comment seems to suggest that they're in trouble because they're using more than their fair share of the shared hosting resources (according to the hosting company). This would seem to contraindicate the idea that not enough people are finding value in what they offer.
Re:Seems like survival of the fittest. (Score:2)
the beauty of geekness (Score:3, Insightful)
At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately its sounding rather like greed has reared up in the wake of the disaster...
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, something new needs to be started from scratch, without Frank being involved AT ALL.
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:2)
Why not just go here [csszengarden.com] instead?
Really nice shit!
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:2)
Don't copy CSS Zen Garden designs. The images aren't open-source, you can't redistribute them freely, they are covered by copyright. Read the FAQ: [mezzoblue.com]
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:2)
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:2)
To be completely clear, the CSS is under a creative commons license, but not the entire designs. It's fine for somebody to copy an oswd.org design completely, but not to do the same with a CSS Zen Garden design. People have done that in the past, and it has resulted in designers removing their designs from the CSS Zen Garden. [mezzoblue.com]
Re:At least we have an explaination now.... (Score:2)
I would hope people would get the idea from the name and content - zen - sit there and contemplate the possibilities of css - and when they are elightened, proceed with their own design.
Just ripping off someone else's stuff is low, and really, rather pointless in the long run. No creativity. Nothing to be proud of.
It isn't about lack of hosting it is about greed (Score:2, Informative)
May not be about greed either (Score:2)
Though it wasn't the other party in question ("Frank"), someone did speak up for him. Look for the poster hatrisc in earlier replies. He claims that Frank is recoding the site.
Again, who knows what the truth is but it doesn't make any sense to be adamant about your position (over someone elses) when there are insufficient facts at
But open source means... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the point of Open Source? The ability that others can take the source and do with it as they wish as long as the results are also open source?
The death of a web site doesn't mean the death of the OSWD community...unless no one cares and they all let it die.
Phoenix
Re:But open source means... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that it should be possible. But it won't be easy without cooperation. And since the site owner doesn't seem keen to help create a site to supplant his, that cooperation is not forthcoming. This leaves those who wish to "pick up the pieces" with two distinct challenges.
The first challenge is replicat
Nice advertisement (Score:2)
Good marketing job, I must admit
OK so this is offtopic, but honestly...what exactly is 'news' about some site that I doubt many people here have even heard of being offline for a few weeks?
Re:Nice advertisement (Score:2)
It says right there in the article summary the site is down and has been a while. That's not advertising.... it's something else... dunno.. maybe NEWS?
Wiping your ass is a conspiracy of the paper-making industry too. It has nothing to do with not smelling like shiat all the time.
Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:5, Informative)
The reason (as stated in the articles) why OSWD.org is down is because the person that started the OSWD.org site, Frank, is trying to keep control over the site, although he isn't doing the majority of the work behind mantaining the site.
Sure, OSWD.org had some hosting issues, but that's not why the site isn't back up; the (seems to me) Second in Command, Aaron, who is dedicating a lot of time and effort into maintaining the site wants to migrate the site to a new host (and has already had everthing set up), except for the content/backups, which Frank refuses to provide.
There are some controversial issues:
After OSWD.org gained some popularity in the beginnings, Frank added a "commercial venture" to the site, the 'templat e monster affiliate program', which was non-free. Aaron's concerns is that it was confusing people and because it was non-free.
I think the issue here is more of "what happens if the project leader is unwilling to provide the content (or source code) for a project, and wants to maintain it tightly within their grasp?" I know the common first reaction would be to say "Fork it!", but how can you fork if you don't have the content or source? OSWD.org (presumably) has has a lot of templates submitted, for which a second backup copy may or may not exist.
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with OSWD.org, nor do I remember having visited them in the past. I may have, but all information above is from the articles linked, namely http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22
Re:Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:3)
I run a few sites that get "maintained" by other people. It is bizarre to me that some /. readers apparently think it is reasonable that someone else would eventually have rights to my site simply because they maintained the data for a while. Is that some kind of unspo
Re:Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:5, Interesting)
I was the only administrative-level moderator at a very popular website for several years. I also produced two successful commercial products for the site, and helped work on many new ideas.
There was a problem, though. The site owner was a frequent no show. In fact, for the last couple years I was there he was virtually invisible...only popping up from time time to restart the server. He wouldn't respond to emails, even from me. He wouldn't respond to user requests or ideas, even when they were filtered through myself or other moderators. He wouldn't back up moderator decisions and the whole site turned very chaotic. He basically just disappeared.
So there was a dilema. Yes, he owned the site and it was his to do with as he pleased. However, the vast majority of the content was produced by volunteers and users.
The solution?
I got in touch with another guy from the site who I felt was trustworthy and we started a small business partnership and started our own website dealing with the same exact subject matter. Since we were members of the original site since its beginning (or nearly), we ended up "stealing" a ton of its users. There were of course big moral debates and a lot of hot heads but it cooled off after six months or so. We just recently passed our two year mark and while the original site has like 30,000 members and millions of forum posts, we only have about 3,000 members and a quarter million posts...but that's ok because it's operating the way we want it to, and that's what it's all about. Our business model is successful too in that we haven't had to pay our high server fees out of pocket since the second month of operation. The original site didn't have a successful model of operation, it all depends on that one invisible guy to fund it with donations and advertising, neither of which are reliable sources of income.
So one lesson learned: if you're willing to volunteer a huge amount of time for a project you believe in when somebody else is going to reap the tangible benefits, and then the project turns to shit.... maybe it's YOUR turn to go for it. You've already got the know-how and the drive after all. You don't need a terribly "unique" idea for a website either, there is a lot of room for good competition out there, which benefits everyone (as long as you're not doing anything slimey).
Another lesson I didn't expect to learn: about a year ago I went through a very unexpected divorce, and suddenly my priorities shifted drastically. I went from putting probably 30-40 hours a week into my project to putting maybe a few hours a month into it. I suddenly understood things a lot better from that other owner's perspective...I didn't want to respond to emails...I didn't want to fix things...I didn't want to take care of anything, it just felt like a burden, but one that I couldn't let go of because it was my baby. Anyhow, the last couple months have been much better and I'm not sure I learned any specific lesson except perhaps some tolerance and understanding.
Re:Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:2)
If the original site has 10 times the users and traffic 2 years later, it doesn't sound as broke as it's being made out to be. Still, the point is valid: with open source, if you don't like the way something's being done, you're free to do it your own way...
Re:Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:3)
Speaking personally, for any project that I was #2 on AND for which I was doing most of the maintenance... I'd have a complete local set of files, and/or my own set of ba
Re:Clearing up some misconceptions (Score:2)
works wonders. I've used phpwebhosting in the past and you can conn
correction: aaron has database (Score:2)
Apparently, according to this announcement on oswd.org,
Aaron (the one who did a large amount of work) is the one holding the site ransom until Frank (the original creator of OSWD) agrees to t
Re:correction: aaron has database (Score:2)
Re:correction: aaron has database (Score:2)
Coral Cache of Nikula's statement (Score:4, Informative)
Another Site Down Because of Bickering (Score:2, Informative)
Raises an interesting question (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious.
just keep on the 'open-source' topic, posters! (Score:2)
Re:Raises an interesting question (Score:2, Interesting)
Now let's not forget music: Jamendo [jamendo.com].
Markets Adapt (Score:2, Insightful)
What especially strikes me is about the part "webmasters who rely on open source design." If you're a real designer, you shouldn't have to rely on anything like this except your own talent. Things like this site are certainly
We Can Rebuild It (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it kind of ridiculous that one man appears to have the power to eliminate a valuable resource used by thousands of users. That just can't be right.
Re:We Can Rebuild It (Score:2)
I know frank. (Score:5, Informative)
I do not know anything about the 'political' drama that Aaron claims, nor do I know if it will be resolved.
Re:I know frank. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why was this modded funny?
Re:I know frank. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I know frank. (Score:3, Insightful)
Real Shame... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh, plenty of other similar sites (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.4layouts.com/ [4layouts.com]
http://www.freelayouts.com/ [freelayouts.com]
etc. etc.
Pretty mixed bag in terms of quality but they all have quite a few, and they're all "Open Source".
Domains are cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
Never heard of them (Score:2)
Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Licensing (Score:3, Informative)
I found OSWD to be incredibly useful, but I hope that, when it comes back, it'll have an explicit license agreement.
Gone since Artwiz left... (Score:2)
Re:If they are so important. (Score:2, Informative)
parent is misinformation (Score:2)
It seems more likely that Aaron is holding the site in ransom until Frank agrees to transfer OSWD ownership to him.
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
Okay, we have Aaron claiming one thing, and Frank claiming another. The only evidence either way so far are the people (including myself) who have visited the site in the past and seen Aaron (a.k.a. MonkeyMan) very involved in the site, but not Frank, in accordance with Aaron's claims.
On what basis are you claiming that one side is telling the truth and the other side is "misinformation", "deliberately misleading", etc? Do you have some insider knowledge that the rest of us don't?
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
I don't have insider information, and I made the claim entirely on the basis of the two public posts by Aaron without even looking at what Frank says about the issue.
Aaron wrote:
Any person reading this gets the impression that Aaron is not allowed to build OSWD (not having access), nor even fork it (Fran
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
Sorry, no. You are reading way, way too much into what he is saying. He's said that Frank is preventing him from bringing OSWD back up. He didn't say that Frank is preventing him from forking. He didn't say that he doesn't have a copy. If you think that he did, then take a reading comprehension class.
There is a huge difference between fixing an existing website and starting a new one. The explanatory post was clearly talking about fixing the existing OSWD website. When he said that there's nothin
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
Keep your petty personal insults to yourself please. Do you think your condescending attitude will win my sympathy for Aaron? And thanks for admitting that you don't know any better than I.
To be honest, I don't support either Frank or Aaron. I only ran into OSWD for a few times in the p
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
No, I'm not. The difference between your position and mine is that you are saying that he is making claims like being unable to fork which are simply not evident, and I am merely pointing out that he said no such thing. Those are not equal positions.
Again, hypocritical, considering
Re:parent is misinformation (Score:2)
Gee, the size of your vocabulary is truly impressive.
Oh damn, you're right. I'm so not a native English speaker because I've got perfect grammar!
mybe i shuld start speakin brokn english tom ake my self mor ecredible!
Re:If they are so important. (Score:2)
B. They don't need hosting.
C. Why don't you try reading the article once or twice?
Re:Never heard of it. Have you? (Score:3, Informative)
Calling this an OSS project is misleading at best. Yes they have some free/opensource templates. But the biggest push on that site, and certainly any of their decent looking templates are NOT opensource. You gotta pay to play, no distribution rights, etc. In short, it's a commercial site that's trying to make money with an OS front. (to clarify, they're not making money off of OSS, they're calling their site OS, but offering primarily commerical products). And guess what....now they've got their knick
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
No, it says that's one of the advantages. Another is having a group of people working on the same thing is more productive than having them work on identical, private projects. An open-source web design project has the advantage that people can improve a design (e.g. work around obscure browser bugs, speed things up with AJAX, etc), and everybody using that design benefits.
This does
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
The reason months went by with no designs being approved was because this guy was away. But just before the site went down it was buzzing with new designs daily, most of which were of a reasonably high standard, XHTML, CSS etc.Follow the link in the main article via the blog and you will see some pretty 'professional' designs.
I beli
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
I appreciate that a lot of people have put a lot of work into the designs that they've submitted to that site, so I'm trying not to be too harsh. But you and I must have very different ideas of what is a "reasonably high standard". The typical designs I saw on that site were garish beginner stuff in my opinion. There were a few decent ones here and there, but th
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
It strikes me that maybe we are viewing OSWD from different perspectives (me as a consumer and you as a critic (in a nice way) and probably potentially very skilled/experienced contributor).
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
That's great. I'll be sure to check it out again once it's back up.
I'm in two minds about that. On the one hand, designs take up such a small amount of space that there's essentially no limit on how many designs suc
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
I quite like white and greys myself. With splashings of colour. But then again, I suck
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
I am a freelance designer. And I fully recognise that I have no right to expect work. I have to provide a service people want. If people want a website, they want a website. The crap template vendors provide that. If they value a quality, bespoke design at the extra cost to hire me, then I am providing a service they want. If they don't value a quality, bespoke design at the extra
Re:OSS makes no sense for this. (Score:2)
OSS makes a lot of sense when you think about reuse of underlying code. If you only think about the pure visual design, yeah, ripping off a template is a really dumb idea.
When it comes to working out the underlying functionality, or finding the latest workaround for some IE broken aspect, or basically ANYTHING code-wise there are only a few legitimate ways to go about it.
Re:The biggest what? (Score:2)
Re:What's OSWD? (Score:2)
Re:What's OSWD? (Score:2)