Companies seem to leave us users in the dark, however do everything for cPanel, DirectAdmin or Plesk, and don't bother with us. Why is that possible?
They think the demand for InterWorx is low, LiteSpeed was the same, and when someone voiced their option, everyone in InterWorx came together and proved them wrong. Why should we be left out? Why should people who are moving fr om another control panel be suddenly left out?

So far you can only do this on InterWorx:

Managing LVE limits per hosting package is not implemented for InterWorx.
You can set LVE limits per user only.

But you can do a lot more on cPanel and other control panels... It's not fair and it's not right so I'm hoping the guys at CloudLinux do the same as LiteSpeed: http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/threads/interworx-plugin.9928/ It's had over 2,373 views and people are moving fr om cPanel due to it's lack of security.

Tweets wh ere they've missed us: 
- https://twitter.com/CloudLinuxOS/status/519127194317369344

@Licensecart we target most common (based on CL usage) panels first

- https://twitter.com/Licensecart/status/533319241978896384

The tweet seems really unfair, we are also paying for Cloudlinux at the same price as cPanel users. So you shouldn\'t \"target most common panels first\". Is not like we are paying much lesser than anyone else. If the functionality is so limited, why charge the same price? Seriously, you gotta think about it before saying such thing.

@Shyuan, hear hear!

Agreed. No support for per-package limits? That\'s a major part of the core functionality of CloudLinux. We\'ve built a business model around selling resource limits by the package, so this is a significant drawback for CloudLinux. It\'s disappointing to see CloudLinux advertise \"compatibility\" with InterWorx, but cripple critical features.

@Dave, hear hear mate! It\'s like selling half of the product for one shop, and a bit more for another shop, even though it\'s the same price.

Jon from the Iworx community said he was told this:

\"if you don\'t feel like CloudLinux provides the quality you want - I am sorry, but this is not going to change any time soon. InterWorx has a very small footprint for us, and we will not invest heavily into it due to that factor. The quality of CL for InterWorx you see today will not improve in the next 6-12 months.\" - Igor

That\'s so wrong and I can\'t believe I\'ve read that. talk about selective choosing. What would happen if cPanel users all pissed off from them and CloudLinux loose customers because they can\'t be bothered to pay for half a product?

I understand how some InterWorx users might feel, but I want you to ask you to look at this from our side.

Due to very limited number of people using CloudLinux for InterWorx – we are loosing money just continuing providing UI compatibility on the current level. Just to make sure that UI continues to work, we should charge about $100/month just to break even. Today, CloudLinux development for InterWorx is done using money we receive from cPanel customers – which might be considered totally unfair to our cPanel customer base.


Adding full compatibility would require even more investment, and I don't see more InterWorx customers materializing.

One might argue that if we would be fully compatible – we might have more customers, but I am not willing to accept that argument. At some point, CloudLinux had same feature set for InterWorx as for cPanel. Yet, number of customers using CloudLinux for InterWorx was non-existent, even though it was quite significant for other control panels.

And remember, we started with no UI at all, no CageFS, no PHP selector, back in 2010 – and within first few months we had more cPanel servers than we have InterWorx servers today.

Oh, and regarding per-package limits – we tried to implement it, and even contacted InterWorx, but there was no way to get package name / id from the SiteWorx account (based on Paul Oehler). Once account created, it is not linked to a package in any way. And yes, InterWorx is the only control panel we know about that has such limitation.


To sum it up:
1. We are loosing money on InterWorx integration, and as such – will not invest more until we get more customers. We will continue provide same level of compatibility as exists today.
2. We provided Interworx with all the info needed to integrate with us. If they think it is useful for their customers – they might shoulder the cost and create such UI as part of InterWorx.
3. You might try recommending CloudLinux to more of your friends that are using InterWorx – this might increase number of people using CloudLinux with InterWorx, and make that platform interesting for us once again. Yet, judging by this thread – people are mostly dissatisfied with what we do.

Due to very limited number of people using CloudLinux for InterWorx – we are loosing money just continuing providing UI compatibility on the current level. Just to make sure that UI continues to work, we should charge about $100/month just to break even. Today, CloudLinux development for InterWorx is done using money we receive from cPanel customers – which might be considered totally unfair to our cPanel customer base.

Does the same go for DirectAdmin and Plesk? InterWorx is growing by the day and people look for CloudLinux to use as-well since they are probably used to it, to then find out it's so basic they might as-well use nothing at all.

Adding full compatibility would require even more investment, and I don't see more InterWorx customers materializing.

InterWorx is growing day by day and people are moving from cPanel, etc LiteSpeed thought the same until a client opened a thread and then users came to voice their opinion out, we're not a small community.

"We will purchase at least 2 licenses once this is compatible with interworx... looking to get away from cpanel."

"I got to this thread *because* I wanted to confirm Litespeed worked with Interworx... and I see it doesn't. I am looking to replace cPanel/Apache with Interworx/Litespeed... this is quite sad."

"The only reason i'm on cpanel still is that there is no other control panel that implements nginx or litespeed or anything faster than apache."

I can bring customers your way if they are looking for CloudLinux, I will also advertise you as much as possible if there's a better plugin and support for features.

One might argue that if we would be fully compatible – we might have more customers, but I am not willing to accept that argument. At some point, CloudLinux had same feature set for InterWorx as for cPanel. Yet, number of customers using CloudLinux for InterWorx was non-existent, even though it was quite significant for other control panels.

Well as more people move to InterWorx, you are missing out a market, if you did have a better plugin like the other systems, I would advertise, recommend and today people are modernising, putting security first, and that's why InterWorx is the next big thing. We've got over 100 licenses with them and we've only been a distributor for them for a year and every day near enough another order comes in.

Oh, and regarding per-package limits – we tried to implement it, and even contacted InterWorx, but there was no way to get package name / id from the SiteWorx account (based on Paul Oehler). Once account created, it is not linked to a package in any way. And yes, InterWorx is the only control panel we know about that has such limitation.

This might have been the fact back in 2010 but it isn't anymore, when I was talking to a support rep when a client had a issue with a domain they fixed it and gave me the fix for the future, and it has a package_id table row for each account.

1. We are loosing money on InterWorx integration, and as such – will not invest more until we get more customers. We will continue provide same level of compatibility as exists today.

I can help you get customers if there was a better plugin available like other control panels, I can suggest / recommend CloudLinux to customers and visitors and direct them your way or LicensePal's way.

2. We provided Interworx with all the info needed to integrate with us. If they think it is useful for their customers – they might shoulder the cost and create such UI as part of InterWorx.

Doesn't that defeat the object? They could be working on improving InterWorx as a whole adding features from the ideas page, helping InterWorx grow, than what they had to do with LiteSpeed. They made a plugin for LiteSpeed to tell InterWorx it wasn't running Apache anymore, and this year, the community have changed LiteSpeed's view on InterWorx and are looking to do an official plugin after they have completed their new plugin they are working on.

3. You might try recommending CloudLinux to more of your friends that are using InterWorx – this might increase number of people using CloudLinux with InterWorx, and make that platform interesting for us once again. Yet, judging by this thread – people are mostly dissatisfied with what we do.

I would recommend CloudLinux like I did to someone who wanted to use LSPHP, but people are put off going from a fully working plugin with nice features on a competitor control panel, to InterWorx with a few features. Wouldn't you mate? And I don't think people here are dissatisfied with what you guys do, you do a great job but people want to be known, why would we suffer unlike other control panel users?

PS sorry for the two posts I couldn't work out why it wasn't submitting it doesn't like the code tags.

We have 20x more DA installs then Interworx. About same number for Plesk. For cPanel is significantly more then either of those.
Regarding per-package limits -- this is the information I got from Paul on January 29th, 2014. Something might have changed since then -- but at this moment I am not planning to add new features for InterWorx.
I am sorry -- but at this moment, due to lack of users -- it is not financially feasible for me to invest in developing all the extra functionality for InterWorx. I understand what InterWorx users want. Unless InterWorx can deliver me large quantity of new customers, I see no point in investing in supporting better integration of CloudLinux & InterWorx.

I wasn't dissatisfied until I saw that tweet, you clearly won't feel how we Interworx users feel and you speak without thinking. A business always started with "customer first", after it succeeded, it's always "money first". Reality.

"One might argue that if we would be fully compatible – we might have more customers, but I am not willing to accept that argument."

I am really sorry but I just need to say that I think you may want to wait forever. Your perceptions and the words came out from you were just so wrong and ignorance. At least this is what I feel. Again, I wasn't dissatisfied until I see what you said. :(

It's human nature to buy something complete and promising. Many people are holding back to see if there are improvements in Interworx Cloudlinux, then only decide whether it's worth investing or not. If there's no significant improvements then that means "I won't buy it now, I will wait". So you're waiting for customers and customers are waiting for you, so what then?

And mind you, we are not making just a one-time payment, we pay every month, means we have rights to see additional features, not just maintenance.

1) Why not set a target rather than blaming that no one is buying from you hence no improvements in CL? You could do something like, if total clients are over *this number* then we will work harder on Interworx's CL plugin.
2) Or charge Interworx client at a cheaper price, so that more people invest in it, then you can add more features and increase the price in future once the features get the same as cPanel's.

CloudLinux support for InerWorx was complete in 2012, was on par with DA/Plesk until early 2014. So, as I said before -- I don't buy the story 'that full integration would change anything in terms of adoption'.

And while we do care about our customers -- we care about them enough to stay in business. Doing something completely unprofitable & costly, that is useful only for handful of people is just wrong. You wouldn't be investing tens of thousands of dollars a month just to make $1000/month. So, I am not sure why you are asking me to do the same.
I mean should we fully support Virtualmin? It is actually just a bit lower on addoption of CloudLinux then InterWorx. And we don't have any UI integration there. For us it is significantly cheaper (might even be considered profitable, unlike InterWorx).

If anything -- we would charge InterWorx customers more, to cover our costs of supporting InterWorx. Yet, I consider it is my fault to even deciding to support InterWorx -- I am keeping the price the same.

And I am not blaming anyone but myself. I should have realistically sized the InterWorx market. We have similar issue with ISPmanager (though even there we have 5x the install base of InterWorx). Yet, there company behind ISPManager recognized the value of CloudLinux for their customers, wants to make sure their customers would have top notch CloudLinux support --> and they are developing integration themselves.  They are not asking us to invest into believing that they have huge number of customers and that it will pay for us in a long term. They are actually trying to deliver those customers to us
BTW: This is what cPanel also has done: They helped us with integration, did a lot of changes in their code to make sure that cPanel would be supported on CloudLinux as first class citizen.
Same with Plesk --> they did huge amounts of work, partnered with us, promoted us to their customers on quite a number of occasions.
DirectAdmin had build CloudLinux integration right into their apache custombuild, added bunch of APIs, caching just to make sure that CloudLinux works fast on DA. 

Basically -- what I am trying to say: If you want fully supported CloudLinux on InterWorx --> talk to InterWorx. We did our bid, we invested two years of full scale development in InterWorx integration. We have seen non-existent customer base, and at this moment no longer willing to continue throwing away money.
We will continue supporting InterWorx on the same level as before, but we will not be investing in further integration.

We were looking into testing Interworx, however full cloudlinux and litespeed support are must haves from our point of view.

I agree with Igor, Interworx needs to implement Cloudlinux and litespeed support as they would gain more customers from doing this than Cloudlinux or Litespeed would.

If Interworx does this then I will give their product a try. If they choose against it then they are not a company we want to work with.

I\'m interested in ispmanager though, I\'ve heeard nothing bad about them but their customer base doesn\'t seem large enough yet to get lots of good reports. Was actually unable to find a decent third party review about them.

We were looking into testing Interworx, however full cloudlinux and litespeed support are must haves fr om our point of view.

I agree with Igor, Interworx needs to implement Cloudlinux and litespeed support ans they would gain more customers from doing this than Cloudlinux or Litespeed would.

If Interworx does this then I will give their product a try. If they choose against it then they are not a company we want to work with.

Why should a control Panel do another companies plugin when they can concentrate on their own control panel? LiteSpeed are doing it they hope to get their plugin out soon after their other plugin. CloudLinux on the end are just lazy and money hungry like cPanel and WHMCS. If they wanted money they\'d work on it and then get more customers and users. If you want InterWorx to do then do you really want a good control panel? Probably not. As for InterWorx I don\'t want them to work on third party crap, and work on the amazing control panel, wh ere in 5.1 Centos 7 support is here, MariaDB, Nginx support out of the box, and much more.

But yeah again, a Control Panel is a Control Panel why should they work on getting \"third party\" money? You pay for CloudLinux they provide the plugins. You don\'t go oh Sony, you want the big competitors support Xbox games on the Playstation...
---
If you want ISPManager, I hope you have enough for their support.

CloudLinux is an operating system with some extra software added on. CentOS didn't make themselves compatible with Interworx, Interworx did this themselves.

We want to use the best OS for webhosting and the best  webserver. I'm not saying that Interworx should do all the work, but they should pull their share of the work.

cPanel officially supports Litespeed and have integrated Cloudlinux into their product. Igor started making his software compatible and they helped finish.

Will will test interworx if/when they officially support all of Cloudlinux and all of Litespeed, up to them.

We like the sound of Interworx and like the look of their clustering solution but cPanel has marked their feature request to have multiple remote Apache servers as planned so we are crossing our fingers that either cPanel will provide clustering support or Interworx will provide Cloudlinux + Litespeed support.

First one there with a good solution, gets our customers ! :)

Today I am using Interworx with CloudLinux + Litespeed.

Interworx have LVE UI and CageFS UI now.

Oh really? Can you show UI/docs from InterWorx? I am really interested.

Oh really? Can you show UI/docs from InterWorx? I am really interested.

Yes, looks good. But maybe just need little improvement on resource limit per package in LVE Manager, this plugin will more great!

This is OLD UI, which is slowly moving into the unsupported stage. The last I remember, there were a few issues with it I was hoping InterWorx would implement integration with a new version

This is OLD UI, which is slowly moving into the unsupported stage. The last I remember, there were a few issues with it I was hoping InterWorx would implement integration with a new version

Oh ok, many thanks for your information.
Any documentation for integrate new version? I can forward this to InterWorx support.

They have our direct contacts, and we discussed it with them before. You can contact them/say that you are interested, but I am not sure if that will change anything.