Some answers Answers that users are looking for

[roberrtk 0]

I've been silenty reading all about the rumor related threads here, and have also been following all the rumors (both at devhost and free-webohst.com reviews). Finally I decided to go ahead with telnet for myself.
So I installed telenet script at my site. Its the same cgi-telnet script that admins here are using for themselves at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Only difference is that I'm giving you the password for my telnet. Its at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and the password is 'Xisto' (without quotes).
I tried all the commands outlined in the review at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/. And they return exactly the same outputs as reported in the review. You are welcome to give it try for yourself. Just point your browser to http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/, And use the password 'Xisto' (without quotes). And then follow the free-webhosts.com review at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

So the bottom line is the rumor is not really a rumor, it's a FACT. This host is being hosted by gazzin.com using their cheapest service (Reseller plan 1), paying only S6.95 a month and this host is overselling.

If you still do not believe it, only God can help you.
One more thing I noticed recently, Google ads are gone now, and also the extremeeeeemly inportant news item at the cpanel regarding google ads. I hope "OpaQue" can still offord paying 6.95 a month to keep this service. And also hope he won't delete my account, Afterall he didn't object to "susan" asking to install cgi-telnet.

[r3d1405241470 0]

google is not gone it's just disable for some weeks. may be some stupid users over clicking the adds. anyway i came here for my hosting not for answer, but i allready have the answer replied by opaque and i'm satisfied with it (poor opaque doesn't know what his talking out there )

[roberrtk 0]

I don't know how can you turn a blind eye to the hard proven facts. You must have reeeeeeeeeealy good faith in OpaQue.I, on the other hand, go by the proven facts. But I really don't care if OpaQue is wrong. All I care for now is my hosting. OpaQue please don't delete my account. I'll try to be more active.

[r3d1405241470 0]

actually true. and most advance user notice this earlier, may be that's why thier migrating. but according to him(read opaque his post)... actually i'm trying a bias though. i have lot of hosting so i don't afraid to lose one. my frnd also try a hosting like this one but for group personal hosting only and this is not a good idea it really sux relying on banners for a payment but who know what's his up to. he might want to prove something i don't know. as far as i concern i have a hosted site here so i need to support this host like what i did to other host. and i'm also tracking a ****ing user who hack my site long time ago(payback time) gathering info about him(phsyco) and he is not active now. anyway i'd like the idea of this one(opaque) sharing what he have, and about free hosting as far i understand free host it is just like a temporary hosting not for life. and this host is much better than those hosting who own the server but after a month goes down for unkown reason. anyway it's up to if you would like to enjoy this host

[lhunath 0]

Right, I don't know what's going on here exactly, but I've mailed gazzin to enquire for information conscearning this issue.

Could you tell me what bothers you about Xisto being hosted by Gazzin in the first place?

 

By the way, I don't know how thoughtfully you read the bandwidth & disk usage calculations, but you do know that they're set up to prove the fact of overusage, rather than prove the truth?

First of all, there is no way that Xisto will ever require all the space that is offered per account. Very few users actually get above a usage of 100Mb as disk space and 500Mb on bandwidth. Therefore, Xisto will not get into trouble for this. Knowing this, take also into account that OpaQue stated that whenever a problem would arise and the resources would turn out to be insufficiant that his credit card will immediately be debited to upgrade the account and provide for a fitting service. He stated upgrade the server, but if it's true that the server isn't his, he'll mean upgrading the account.

Now, think about this a bit more cleverly than just reading what somebody said and blindly agreeing, because I can so see that you haven't thought a bit about the calculations.

Isn't it more than completely logical for Xisto to start with the Plan1 package? Why would OpaQue pay for more, only to have a huge amount of resources that he wouldn't be able to re'sell'. He's paying $6 now, because $6 is sufficiant. And it would be very stupid of his to pay more if he didn't need any more.

 

So allow me to quote you and toss it right back at you,

If you still do not believe it, only God can help you.

[roberrtk 0]

Very nice try to cover it up in favor of Xisto.

Emailing gazzin is not gonna get anyhting. Gazzin will never reveal their client's identity.

Do you really know what is overselling? Overselling is using more space and/or bandwidth than what you have. In other words overselling could also be called as overusage. And I believe that is what the calculation in the review proves. Now it's upto you to call it overselling or overusage. It means same. And your excuse about nobody using the full potential of their accounts, is valid. And it is the most common reason given for overselling. But it still does not mean that overselling is not being done.

I alo agree that it makes sense that OpaQue only pay $6.95 for start, and upgrade it when members really start feeling the effect of overselling.

What bothered me, curiosity. When OpaQue didn't object about cgi-telent and when I read the review detailing commaond to use. I could not resist to install it myself and try it out.

Other thing that didn't bother me then, but bothers me now. Is lying. "Jhony" started this scandal a month ago and got banned. And since than I don't see OpaQue admiting not owning the server and overselling. Infact, pinned threads still say that they own server and that they are not overselling. In case you missed jhony orignal post, its google cache is at /search?q=cache:Fq2W4+Xisto&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=cmr2V5yINoe4eaiFvfAF.

If you are following the other thread "Account Deletion Request", OpaQue is still lying and is coming up with new excues everytime. He now says that his other site computing-web-hosting.com owns the server, and that he is not overselling. I do not know if Susan checked the cgi-telnet on my site already or not. But if she had, it'd very easy to prove OpaQue wrong. I'm tempted to jump into that other thread, But I'll wait for now.

 

EDIT: I just noticed that although you are an Advanced member and a moderator, but you are very new to this host (under two weeks). You should read the google cache to get uptodate first at,

/search?q=cache:Fq2W4+Xisto&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=cmr2V5yINoe4eaiFvfAF

Then you'd realize about all the pinned threads that are still lying

 

Back to you

If you still do not believe it, only God can help you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[lhunath 0]

Do you really know what is overselling? Overselling is using more space and/or bandwidth than what you have. In other words overselling could also be called as overusage. And I believe that is what the calculation in the review proves.

Using more space and/or bandwidth than what you have? In that case, you helped me prove that Xisto is not overselling. Because they do not use more than what they have. They would, should every member suddenly use almost their max allowed disk quota / bandwidth. Which is statistically impossible.

 

What bothered me, curiosity. When OpaQue didn't object about cgi-telent and when I read the review detailing commaond to use. I could not resist to install it myself and try it out.

I think OpaQue doesn't have any knowledge about CGI Telnet, and must have figured that it was a fake script set up to prove that his hosting sucked. I think he's witnessed more than enough people unrightfully trying to take Xisto down, and lost his patience for a decent investigation into this.

In case you missed jhony orignal post, its google cache is at /search?q=cache:Fq2W4+Xisto&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=fGr2V5i4EIPk-QGh7b2ACQ.

That's a very interresting thread there. OpaQue must have tried to defend himself and Xisto, trying to convince everybody that nothing was going on. And to do that allow himself to slip away from the truth in an attempt to be more convincing. Sad. But oh well, it's not because one man lies that a company falls. The facts still don't exclude that Xisto can be a more than decent host compared to all the others out there.

EDIT: I just noticed that although you are an Advanced member and a moderator, but you are very new to this host (under two weeks). You should read the google cache to get uptodate first [..]

Then you'd realize about all the pinned threads that are still lying

I just have, thank you for that, but I still think, as I said that there is no serious lacking in this service. There may indeed be lies spread by OpaQue, I don't know about that for sure, I hope he'll shed light on this, but I still have a decent account here, and the services offered are good. I see no reason as why I should doubt it. How he got them, is beyond my care, as long as they work as expected.

[roberrtk 0]

Using more space and/or bandwidth than what you have? In that case, you helped me prove that Xisto is not overselling. Because they do not use more than what they have. They would, should every member suddenly use almost their max allowed disk quota / bandwidth. Which is statistically impossible.

Huh!! You almost had me there

Techincally, Using more space and/or bandwidth than what you have? is not overselling, becasue there is no selling or offering is involved, OVerselling is Offering more space and/or bandwidth than what you have? And that's exactly what Xisto is doing. Although there are not too many chances that it would cause any problem in any near future (considering the speed of users asking for hosting ). But it still is overselling and OpaQue still does not admit it.

 

I think OpaQue doesn't have any knowledge about CGI Telnet, and must have figured that it was a fake script set up to prove that his hosting sucked.

What would you say about http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ You, yourself are Mod here, do you have ftp access to Xisto main site? I don't think so. Only admins do, and all the admins here are friends who started this host. And OpaQue is their leader.

 

That's a very interresting thread there.

Atleast we agree on something

OpaQue must have tried to defend himself and Xisto, trying to convince everybody that nothing was going on. And to do that allow himself to slip away from the truth in an attempt to be more convincing. Sad.

That's called lying in plain English.

BTW, I believe, all the lies that "johny' pointed out in that thread are before this scandal started. So you can not say that "OpaQue must have tried to defend himself and Xisto"

There may indeed be lies spread by OpaQue, I don't know about that for sure, I hope he'll shed light on this

As far as the reviews go, he is being doing this by banning users. I don't why this time he decided to let this discussion go. And now he trying to shed light on this in other thread with Susan.

 

but I still think, as I said that there is no serious lacking in this service.

but I still have a decent account here, and the services offered are good.

I never said that this service lacks anything. Their offering is good. That's why I want to keep my account here. Am initially was scared to talk about this. Becasue I thought OpaQue will delete my account.

[lhunath 0]

I do agree on you that he may be overselling, but I don't see a problem there.
For most of the other issues, I mostly agree as well, but let's continue this conversation here:
http://forums.xisto.com/topic/80439-topic/?findpost=
And centralise this problem a little. I believe the time for discussion is over and the time for OpaQue to end it is at hand.

This conversation will continue in the above stated thread, therefore, topic here, closed.