Re: [Dave] A question regarding the right procedure for backing up

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:13:43 -0800

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much for your helpful reply. And also for the explanations, I had never understood properly why the difference was so important. Except, of course, that I could see the problems when uploading files in the wrong mode.

Thanks to your answer, I feel now confident that my backups of sites created with AM are done in the correct way.

I had not been on the forum for quite some time, after having been a frequent user at the time I started to use AM - that was in 2003, if I remember well. It is nice to see that InteractiveTools continues to develop, and always with the same spirit!

Re: [Dave] AM 1 advice about suspicious files in the publish folder

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:02:54 -0800

Thank you very much, Dave! Good suggestion that I should have changed the permissions. If it should happen again, I would do that.

Anyway, they have been deleted in the meantime - and everything seems to be working well on the website. In the publish folder of AM 1, where I have never put any other content, I just don't see any reason why .php files should be found.

For one of my websites, I might sooner or later go up to CMS Builder, while managing other articles with AM 1. I assume that both can run side by side, as long as I keep the published articles in clearly separated folders - but this would by a topic for another thread.

Thank you again for having shared your suggestions!

Re: [tribulatio] AM 1 advice about suspicious files in the publish folder

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:49:28 -0800

No comment... OK, I will go ahead and ask the hosting service to delete them, hoping it will be the right decision.

Re: [Damon] A question regarding the right procedure for backing up

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:23:17 -0800

Hi Damon,

Thank you very much for your reply!

Well, I asked the second backup provider and he gave me the same answer: they are backing up in binary too and assure me that downloading a website in binary keeps it intact (they provide cloud backup), that it is only when uploading folders and files to the server that it matters how ASCII and binary are selected. (But of course, none of them is familiar with AM.)

The third backup provider, myRepono, installs an API on the website, and the backup is sent to their server as compressed packets of files. If need there is to restore, it is done directly on the website through the API: thus there should be no download/upload issues, only setting some permissions, although they told me they are looking for ways to preserve them when backing up.

Obviously, I did not yet need to restore from such a backup - and I hope that I will never need to! Nevertheless, it would be good to make sure that proper ways are respected so that AM will work properly after a restoration from such backups.

BTW, it is really interesting to see new possibilities opening in the field of backing up websites these days (most welcome developments, considering what can happen to websites). Since prices are affordable (even cheap with myRepono), I have decided for a strategy combining myRepono and a "classical" way of cloud backup. The plus offered by BackupMachine is that they can also backup databases. CodeGuard does not (yet, it is on their agenda), but it offers to monitor the website for any change, something that can be useful too.

Of course, for websites created with WordPress, there are now some quite easy to use (and apparently reliable) backup tools, due to the success of WordPress.

Anyway, if somebody on this forum has an experience in backing up and knows about this question of using binary for downloading the website, any information and experience would be most welcome.

Re: [tribulatio] A question regarding the right procedure for backing up

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:57:01 -0800

Nobody around?...I remember the happy times when any legitimate question asked on this forum would get an answer within a few hours.

OK, I know this is the section for "classic products", and staff is no longer looking (really?... really?...). But I bought four AM licenses full price at the time... I would hope for some answer, especially since this is a simple question, just asked by a non technical user who would like to be sure about the answer. If staff is forbidden to answer in this section, maybe some kind user?...

Thank you, somebody?...

A question regarding the right procedure for backing up

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 12:10:23 -0800

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am currently testing cloud backups systems for websites: myRepono, BackupMachine and CodeGuard. And I have a question regarding backups of two websites, one using AM 1.2 and the other one AM 1.4.1.

Some of the cloud backup systems need a script, backup online and then send packets to the backup server. Other ones actually just download the entire website, so that one can keep a copy.

Of course, having used AM for years and having had to change servers, I know that the mode of FTP uploading is important: no auto, binary for some folders and files, ASCII for some other folders and files.

Thus I asked the support of one of the tools I am testing: how are you getting the content of the website. They replied that they do it in binary, since this cannot affect any file. And that uploading some files in binary, other ones in ASCII, only matters when I send the files to the server, not when I download the entire website in order to keep a full backup of the website. So it is not the same two ways, and binary for backing up the website is fine.

I just would like to know if this explanation is correct? Indeed, it would be upsetting to do backups that one cannot use in case something happens!

Thank you, techies, for confirming - or giving a different opinion!

AM 1 advice about suspicious files in the publish folder

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 12:00:47 -0800

For a website that is not updated frequently, I continue to use... AM 1.2. And it works flawlessly, there are only a few hundreds of articles, a few more every year - so I do not see any need to change.

But anyway, the purpose of this post is not to advertise past versions of AM! I have come across something suspicious, and before attempting to delete the items, I would like to have expert opinion.

I do publish all the articles in one folder, called /p. Yesterday, as I was testing a cloud backup service for that website and other ones (myRepono.com, a quite interesting tool at affordable price), I noticed that it could not backup two files that are found in that folder. The names of those files are:
include.php
report.php
There is also a third file called: index.php
I attach a screen capture showing how they look in cPanel.

It is impossible to open include.php and report.php, impossible also to download them in order to analyze their content locally. And the backup system cannopt back them up.

The website was hacked a year ago (not first time), and I suspect those are legacy files from that hacking. This suspicion is reinforced by the content of index.php, the only one I am able to open. It reads:
"
Lines of code follow.

Before attempting to remove those three files, or asking the webhost to remove them if it is impossible for me to erase them, I just want to be sure: there is no way AM 1.2 could produce in the publish folder such php files, correct?

Thank you for confirming that! The files must have been there for quite a long time, and I prefer to ask before erasing them.

Re: [Donna] Planning to switch from AM to CMSB - interaction between CMSB and plugins

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:43:25 -0800

Thank you for the explanations, Donna! Probably I got confused by the fact that the demo did not include any upload field, but it is true that, when reading again the thread on "legend below an image", it tells that I do not need any plugin in the "real" CMS Builder. Your post was very useful, since it helped me to clarify the issue I had.

Based on what you are telling me, I think that I see the way ahead: I will buy right now a CMS Builder license, although I will probably install it on my website only after a few months (I assume that I can download the latest version then, in case there is an upgrade in the meantime). But I will keep the already existing articles in AM1, as they were.

You are right, AM1 could actually still do the job for some time, until I reach the upper limit for the number of articles. But since my website is already in two languages, and I am considering to add a third one (non-Latin script) at some point in 2010, probably CMS Builder will be much more appropriate for doing the job. Of course, there will be a period of adjustment, like it is for every new tool. But version 2 of CMS Builder seems to be a very robust and mature version, so it is probably the right time to switch.

A main reason for keeping old articles in AM1 is my commitment to permanent URLs: it will be much easier this way.

It is nice to be an Interactive Tools customer! And to see how consistent and friendly support is. I just checked: I bought my first AM1 license on Dec. 31, 2002! Subsequently, I bought in 2003 and 2004 three other AM1 licenses, and also three NM licenses. I skipped entirely AM2, and will thus go directly to CMS Builder.

Planning to switch from AM to CMSB - interaction between CMSB and plugins

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:26:02 -0800

As I mentioned in two other posts, I am considering to switch from AM1 to CMSB - since I understand that AM2 will no longer be developed.

It seems - but correct me if I am wrong - that there is a major difference between AM and CMS Builder. AM was a fully integrated solution, I did never need any plugin. With CMS Builder, in order to do various things that were implemented in AM (e.g. my previous question on captions below images), it seems that one needs to add plugins - and moreover external ones, not plugins produced by InteractiveTools.

Not necessarily a problem - but what will happen if the system evolves and if the plugin does no longer work properly in ten years, is not longer compatible, no longer maintained? Does it mean than suddenly pages will cease to publish properly? Also, does it mean that I will need to update plugins regularly, thus creating additional work for somebody maintaning a news website without technical knowledge or technical support?

I must confess I have a concern here, and I would appreciate some clarifications. I see the advantages of CMSB for people who want to manage a website with its different sections. But I came to AM due to its amazing possibilities for managing a news section in a website, and I am wondering if CMSB really offers to me the same power for that very specific purpose, or if it should be seen as a completely different product - better no doubt for "generalistic" purposes, but less appropriate for the very specific purpose of creating and managing a news website?

I prefer to ask the question frankly before switching to CMSB. And if some users who have news-oriented website can share their experiences switching from one to another (preferably providing exemples of news websites they are running), this would be greatly appreciated.

Re: [chris] Legend below an image?

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:07:32 -0800

Hello!

Thank you for your reply, this would indeed work for me.

I have a more general question regarding plugins in CMS Builder, but I will open a separate thread for that purpose.

Re: [chris] Legend below an image?

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:15:10 -0800

Thank you. I think this answers indeed my question, although it is not yet entirely clear for me how it works. If I understand right, I can upload a file along with a caption that will be seen below it - but if I switch to WYSYWYG, I won't see the caption, although it will appear on the website once published?

I must say that I have always used AM1 in HTML, since my website is bilingual (English-French); I write my text normally, then use Page Spinner (I am on Mc) for converting into HTML.

I understand now that UTF-8 becoming quite widespread, producing it in WYSYWYG might become an option, but many things remain still unclear at this point.

Legend below an image?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:57:22 -0800

Having been a user of AM1 for serveral years, I have now been testing CMS Builder with the demo on your website.

It seems that most of the features that I used with AM1 are there. There is one, however, that is important to me and that I cannot find: in each article, I insert one or serveral images. Below images, I include a short legend, if only for photo credits.

In the demo for CMS Builder, I found no way to do that. But there must certainly be one. How is it done?

Re: [Dave] The end of the Article Manager?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:03:42 -0800

Thank you for the prompt reply, Dave! Years are passing, but Interactive Tools support remains the same: courteous, helpful - this is what makes the difference, in addition to quality products.

Wonderful to read that: then CMS is certainly for me the way to go, although I might still have to clarify a few questions - but I will post those in the CMS Builder section of the forum in due time, just posted one already regarding legends below pictures.

Re: [Dave] The end of the Article Manager?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:39:56 -0800

Very helpful indeed, thank you! Provided my already existing webpages remain accessible forever (!), even if AM1 stops working in a few years due to technical changes, then the option of having only new articles produced with CMS builder is certainly the best one. Importing existing articles one by one to CMSB is not an option, there are hundreds of them.

I will anyway buy a CMSB licence, and then see how I implement that. I am producing a news site in two languages (English/French), and I assume that CMSB can easily handle 10,000 or 20,000 articles if I reach that number in a few years, right?

Re: [Dave] The end of the Article Manager?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:14:03 -0800

Thank you for the information! I had no longer visited the forum for a long time. I have been a user of AM 1 for several years, and I am producing three websites with AM 1. I had decided to upgrade to AM 2 this year, but I am glad I didn't do it: since I realize now I should actually upgrade directly to CMS Builder.

Two very practical questions:

1) Is it possible to upgrade directly from AM 1 to CMS Builder, or is an upgrade first to AM 2 needed?

2) My websites are committed to permanent URLs. Is it possible to keep them during the upgrade process and to get URL such as http://mysite.com/articles/article_454.shtml with CMS Builder? (If it is not possible, rather than to move the material from AM 1, I should probably keep it running on my websites for old articles, and install CMS for new ones - my only fear being that some day, in five or ten years, AM 1 will no longer be working properly for some technical reasons - however, probably I could still keep the older webpages as they are, as long as I do not modify them).

Those are important news, and I am really glad you share them now, so that I can take the right next step.

Re: [Donna] Restoring from a backup

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:22:57 -0700

Thank you, Donna! This encourages me to take the step soon.

By the way, a small additional question: I will obviously buy a new licence for AM 2, but should I rather ask specifically for an upgrade licence, or just buy a new one? it is not a question about price here, but I was wondering if it was better for some reason just to keep the same old licence registration number, or if it does not matter.

Re: [Donna] Templates not Working

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:20:07 -0700

Very useful info for me too: it has probably allowed me to solve a problem I encountered after a move to a new server. This forum is really helpful!

Re: [Donna] Restoring from a backup

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:02:27 -0700

Thank you very much, Donna! I will take care of the move in a few days, using the backup as my basis, and let you know (call for help!!) if I come across any issue.

The next step, in a not too far future, will be to upgrade to version 2. I hope that I will be able to keep my templates as they are, and also that there won't be any change in the URL, since my website commits itself to permanent, stable URLs.

Restoring from a backup

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:29:37 -0700

This question actually regards AM 1, but I assume the same would apply to AM 2, so it is relevant to post it here, since no thread can be created in the AM 1 section.

I am about to move a website using AM 1 to a new server (once it will be on the new server, I will obviously soon upgrade to AM 2, at last). I have all the instructions about moving, this is not the issue, my question is much more specific.

I use a backup tool, a French product, which backs up an entire website and creates a zip of the backup on the server - then I download it to my hard disk. Obviously, if I unzip it, it will recreate on the my hard disk the entire website (except databases, that are backed up separately, but this is not an issue for AM 1).

Question: if all the files on the old server have been downloaded as part of a big zip file, I assume that the instructions about downloading such file in ASCII, such other file in binary, just don't apply?

And does it mean that I can now, after unzipping, just upload to the new server (of course following the instructions regarding binary or ascii for specific files? Or is it better to follow another way?

Thank you for letting me know!

Re: [Cherry] Suggestions: Looking for a great hosting provider?

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:12:43 -0800

I am in Europe too! However, I recommend a hosting provider in the US...

I posted on this thread a year ago, and so I have thought it would be good to provide an update. I would continue to recommend highly InMotion Hosting, http://www.inmotionhosting.com/. I have now four of my websites hosted with them, and I can really say that there was very rarely downtime (and if it happened, it was always only a very short break), excellent and personal service in those few cases when I had to ask something from them, and reasonable price ($7.95 per month for 30 GB transfer). More than one year of experience with them, four websites, no complaint at all. And most comments on forums are positive.

In case you want a hosting service with servers in my native Switzerland, Infomaniak http://www.infomaniak.ch would be a good choice - I have one of my websites with them. It is good, solid, sligthly more expensive (180 Swiss Francs per year, but 80 GB monthly traffic, 1,200 e-mail accounts...). Never any problem with them. But what has made me hesitant to put more websites with them is that their support doesn't reply on week-ends (they have an alert system in case something goes wrong, but nobody reads support requests on Saturday and Sunday). Otherwise good and reliable.

I hope this helps!

Re: [glenschild] Suggestions: Looking for a great hosting provider?

Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:12:26 -0700

For about one year, I used hosting providers here in Switzerland. Some of them very kind and helpful, even some nice features, but... no helpline on week-ends or outside office hours! Which meant that, in August, two of my websites were out for more than three days (week-end plus National Day!). I decided that such long time-outs were not acceptable, and so I have been looking for other solutions, based upon two considerations:
a) fast, personal replies at any time (no automatized forms, prompt replies even during week-ends);
b) check on various forums for hosting providers consistently rated highly.
I did not find any meeting those expectations in Switzerland, so I looked abroad. I found two in the USA which seem to me to meet my expectations at affordable prices:
1) I have transferred in August one of my domains to http://inmotionhosting.com/ - friendly and prompt support, only 30 minutes timeout in nearly 6 weeks. I will still test it for some time, but looks convincing - and has been consistently praised by customers on various forums as one of the best providers on the market.
2) I may consider transferring two of my other domains to http://hostegrity.com/ or its parent company, http://theprimehost.com/. Not only do they offer highly attractive packages for hosting multiple domains with a lot of bandwidth, but inquiry requests received very fast, personal, precise and courteous replies. Moreover, I must confess that I feel attracted by their statement: "Hostegrity strives to meet our namesake and provide our users with a hosting service that is honest and ethical. We find the market today is sadly lacking in this area." Well, exactly what we have all been looking for, istn't it?
The only weakness for both is that they only offer webmail of the type Horde or NeoMail - there are much better webmail tools available today, such as IceWarp of Merak, but most hosting providers seem still to opt for Horde, NeoMail and the like. However, this matters only for people who use webmail a lot, i.e. not for most of us.
If any other participant on this forum have made some experiences with those two hosting providers, it would be interesting to hear from them. I came to the conclusion that they might be among the best ones after spending days looking for the best solution this summer.
Hope the info can be helpful.
Tribulatio