5 ms·

I didn't realize Ghost was a non-profit. Very noble. The feedback in Github is interesting. Ghost is probably more likely to have issues with demanding users th

I didn't realize Ghost was a non-profit. Very noble. The feedback in Github is interesting. Ghost is probably more likely to have issues with demanding users than, say, mongodb. Very cool and inspiring post. That said: - Ghost's marketing materials tend to outright lie to users when making comparisons to WordPress or other platforms. - I dislike OSS projects that hide their OSS nature. Why does a user need to pay $29/mo for an entry level blog? Why isn't there any obvious mention of the OSS nature of the project on the pricing page, home page, or features page? - What's been done about the memory issues? Last time I tried ghost, it was a bit of a memory hog.

michaeltbuss 8y ago
Their home page at ghost.org literally says "Ghost is a fully open source, adaptable platform for building and running a modern online publication" at the top.
- debacle 8y ago
  And where is the github link on the home page, or the pricing page?
  - r3bl 8y ago
    In the footer, in both of the cases.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Under "Developers"?
- jonesetc 8y ago
  I poked around the mobile site and couldn't find any of what you're saying. Then I checked non-mobile and there it is up front. So possibly the parent poster was only looking at mobile. For reference the mobile homepage only says "The professional publishing platform"
- throwbacktictac 8y ago
  After reading this comment I went to check for myself. However I believe the grandfather post still has a valid point. It's not "obvious" how to use the self hosting open source version. However, I'm pretty sure a person that was really interested in self hosting would not have trouble figuring it out. I don't necessarily think it's bad that they don't emphasize how to use the open source version. After all, it is a business.
  - slim 8y ago
    They are claiming it is not a business
    - throwbacktictac 8y ago
      They didn't claim to not be a business in the blog post. They are a non-profit business. They still need to earn money to pay bill, pay employees, etc. "Being a non-profit means that the company has no shares. I don't own it. Hannah doesn't own it. Nobody owns it - it's an independent entity. The company makes money and pays expenses, salaries and taxes as normal - but there's no way for it to be bought or sold either in part (investment) or as a whole (aquisition). Any profit the company makes can only ever be reinvested, not distributed. We can't cash out. Ever. Also the entire product is open source and has no copyright. Anyone can do whatever they want with our code, for free."
a_imho 8y ago
Very noble. I was under the impression being setup as a non profit grants various tax optimization strategies / returns. Which can be probably redistributed as salary.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  There is a place for this sort of cynicism, for example when looking at Zuckerberg’s structure of his “family trust.” But in this case it’s really an absurd implication. There is literally no personal benefit to founders making their company a non-profit. Yes they can pull salary from it, but they could do that in a for-profit company too. Not only that, but it’s impossible to sell a 501c3 non-profit because there are no shares. It can only dissolve, in which case the board must distribute any remaining assets to another non-profit.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Is the salary information public? Because one can cash out through a 500k a year salary
    - chatmasta 8y ago
      Or one could just incorporate as a for-profit in the first place, and pay a $500k salary. There is basically no advantage to paying yourself $500k at a 501c3 vs a for-profit, and certainly not one that outweighs the many disadvantages. Employees need to pay taxes just as they would at any corporation, and the company needs to pay their withholdings. The only payroll tax a 501c3 is exempt from is FUTA (federal unemployment tax). Seriously, looking for nefarious motivation here is really grasping at straws.
      - j16sdiz 8y ago
        ... 501c3 .. They are a Singapore non-profit. https://blog.ghost.org/moving-to-singapore/ https://blog.ghost.org/moving-to-singapore/
  - a_imho 8y ago
prophesi 8y ago
Homepage says it's FOSS, features page says it's FOSS, the developer page links to a giant Download button. And how is it lying about their comparisons? It is indeed simpler to set up a Ghost site than a Wordpress site, and has more features out-of-the-box that you'd otherwise have to download sketchy plugins for with Wordpress/etc.
- debacle 8y ago
  Two quick examples: A baseline WP host is not $50 a month. Ghost is not 20 times faster than WP.
  - prophesi 8y ago
    That's for a managed WP host. I agree that the $50/mo price comes out of nowhere, but you're still not going to find one for $20/mo as you would with Ghost. Ghost is 20 times faster. And once you add a single WP plugin, it's 100 times faster.
    - extra88 8y ago
      Isn't Dreampress a comparably affordable managed Wordpress host? https://www.dreamhost.com/wordpress/ https://www.dreamhost.com/wordpress/
      - oddevan 8y ago
        I imagine there's a difference between "managed hosting" (host handles OS/package updates and maintains your LAMP stack) and "managed WordPress hosting" (host handles all of the above AND core WordPress updates, basic security, etc).
        extra88 8y ago
        Dreampress's non-shared hosting plans include "Wordpress Service Updates" which surely includes core Wordpress updates and updates to plugins they include, like Jetpack. It might also cover updating a list of the most popular plugins. For security beyond running updated software, it includes a Wordpress-tuned web application firewall and the $24.95/month tier includes "Malware Scanning & Repair."
394852034 8y ago
I really wish there was not so much damn confusion about what non-profit and not-for-profit actually mean. They do not mean that the organizations are some altruistic organizations with helper complexes. They simply don't report any profits because they either put it into expansion, inefficiency, or simply heap the profits upon their executives. So while you are heaping wishful and magic thinking good karma on non-profits, you don't realize a huge number of them, essentially far more of them than not, are more or less fraudulent organizations, especially on the federal and global level. While you donate to do good, their executives and officers live like Princes and Kings while they spend just enough to generate marketing and PR materials so the fools will keep giving and donating and volunteering and supporting their little schemes. I know people don't want to believe that and it's a difficult thing to accept, which is why most people just cling to the "non-profit" label, but reality is realty, whether you accept it or not.

michaeltbuss 8y ago

Their home page at ghost.org literally says "Ghost is a fully open source, adaptable platform for building and running a modern online publication" at the top.

debacle 8y ago
And where is the github link on the home page, or the pricing page?
- r3bl 8y ago
  In the footer, in both of the cases.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Under "Developers"?
jonesetc 8y ago
I poked around the mobile site and couldn't find any of what you're saying. Then I checked non-mobile and there it is up front. So possibly the parent poster was only looking at mobile. For reference the mobile homepage only says "The professional publishing platform"
throwbacktictac 8y ago
After reading this comment I went to check for myself. However I believe the grandfather post still has a valid point. It's not "obvious" how to use the self hosting open source version. However, I'm pretty sure a person that was really interested in self hosting would not have trouble figuring it out. I don't necessarily think it's bad that they don't emphasize how to use the open source version. After all, it is a business.
- slim 8y ago
  They are claiming it is not a business
  - throwbacktictac 8y ago
    They didn't claim to not be a business in the blog post. They are a non-profit business. They still need to earn money to pay bill, pay employees, etc. "Being a non-profit means that the company has no shares. I don't own it. Hannah doesn't own it. Nobody owns it - it's an independent entity. The company makes money and pays expenses, salaries and taxes as normal - but there's no way for it to be bought or sold either in part (investment) or as a whole (aquisition). Any profit the company makes can only ever be reinvested, not distributed. We can't cash out. Ever. Also the entire product is open source and has no copyright. Anyone can do whatever they want with our code, for free."

a_imho 8y ago

Very noble. I was under the impression being setup as a non profit grants various tax optimization strategies / returns. Which can be probably redistributed as salary.

chatmasta 8y ago
There is a place for this sort of cynicism, for example when looking at Zuckerberg’s structure of his “family trust.” But in this case it’s really an absurd implication. There is literally no personal benefit to founders making their company a non-profit. Yes they can pull salary from it, but they could do that in a for-profit company too. Not only that, but it’s impossible to sell a 501c3 non-profit because there are no shares. It can only dissolve, in which case the board must distribute any remaining assets to another non-profit.
- wolco 8y ago
  Is the salary information public? Because one can cash out through a 500k a year salary
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    Or one could just incorporate as a for-profit in the first place, and pay a $500k salary. There is basically no advantage to paying yourself $500k at a 501c3 vs a for-profit, and certainly not one that outweighs the many disadvantages. Employees need to pay taxes just as they would at any corporation, and the company needs to pay their withholdings. The only payroll tax a 501c3 is exempt from is FUTA (federal unemployment tax). Seriously, looking for nefarious motivation here is really grasping at straws.
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      ... 501c3 .. They are a Singapore non-profit. https://blog.ghost.org/moving-to-singapore/ https://blog.ghost.org/moving-to-singapore/
- a_imho 8y ago

prophesi 8y ago

Homepage says it's FOSS, features page says it's FOSS, the developer page links to a giant Download button. And how is it lying about their comparisons? It is indeed simpler to set up a Ghost site than a Wordpress site, and has more features out-of-the-box that you'd otherwise have to download sketchy plugins for with Wordpress/etc.

debacle 8y ago
Two quick examples: A baseline WP host is not $50 a month. Ghost is not 20 times faster than WP.
- prophesi 8y ago
  That's for a managed WP host. I agree that the $50/mo price comes out of nowhere, but you're still not going to find one for $20/mo as you would with Ghost. Ghost is 20 times faster. And once you add a single WP plugin, it's 100 times faster.
  - extra88 8y ago
    Isn't Dreampress a comparably affordable managed Wordpress host? https://www.dreamhost.com/wordpress/ https://www.dreamhost.com/wordpress/
    - oddevan 8y ago
      I imagine there's a difference between "managed hosting" (host handles OS/package updates and maintains your LAMP stack) and "managed WordPress hosting" (host handles all of the above AND core WordPress updates, basic security, etc).
      - extra88 8y ago
        Dreampress's non-shared hosting plans include "Wordpress Service Updates" which surely includes core Wordpress updates and updates to plugins they include, like Jetpack. It might also cover updating a list of the most popular plugins. For security beyond running updated software, it includes a Wordpress-tuned web application firewall and the $24.95/month tier includes "Malware Scanning & Repair."

394852034 8y ago

I really wish there was not so much damn confusion about what non-profit and not-for-profit actually mean. They do not mean that the organizations are some altruistic organizations with helper complexes. They simply don't report any profits because they either put it into expansion, inefficiency, or simply heap the profits upon their executives. So while you are heaping wishful and magic thinking good karma on non-profits, you don't realize a huge number of them, essentially far more of them than not, are more or less fraudulent organizations, especially on the federal and global level. While you donate to do good, their executives and officers live like Princes and Kings while they spend just enough to generate marketing and PR materials so the fools will keep giving and donating and volunteering and supporting their little schemes. I know people don't want to believe that and it's a difficult thing to accept, which is why most people just cling to the "non-profit" label, but reality is realty, whether you accept it or not.