Do you like the new public_html link setup, or do you want the old method back?

What default do you want the ~/public_html link to be?

  • A directory with domain links inside, as it currently is

    Votes: 25 44.6%

  • A link to the default domain's public_html

    Votes: 31 55.4%
  • Total voters
    56
Rookie said:
For me, I think this update has been a complete nightmare!

PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK... PLEEEEEASE
Click to expand...

One would hope that for those of us who carefully instructed our customers that the sun no longer rose in the east and instead rose in the west would have the option in the next version of DA of not having to tell them that contrary to previous instructions, the sun now rises in the east.

I can hardly wait for the rewrite of the laws of gravity.
 
<opinion>It was wrong for DA to ever have the old way in the first place. It is about time they corrected it. We cannot keep telling people to do something the wrong way just because that is what they are used to. I fixed DA's mistake 3 years ago when I first starting using it and gave my customers the correct instructions. Now with the change, my customers never saw a difference and are not affected at all and don't even know anything changed. Why? Because the change I made 3 years ago is the correct way of doing it. I am sorry other people did not see the problem with the default DA install and did not correct it themselves and provide their customers with the correct instructions. But now it is time to fix that mistake. We cannot keep doing things the wrong way just because that is what people want.</opinion>

Out of all the people on this forum only 29 have even voted so far so apparently most people don't even care. I hope DA does not make a decision based on only 29 people.
 
Last edited:
Can I change my vote ?

I think the intent was positive, but the outcome chaotic. Customers are not only posting in the 1st public_html , but they are even deleting the symbolic links.

I think we need to rethink this one and come up with a similar solution, but not one that creates other problems.
 
The original way was chaotic for users who have more than one domain. They were destroying their previously uploaded sites. That is why I deleted the public_html symbolic link altogether. There should not be a public_html directory or link in the ./username directory at all. Then there is no confusion.

I have already solved my problem 3 years ago so it doesn't really matter to me what DA does.
 
The old right is the new wrong

floyd said:
The original way was chaotic for users who have more than one domain.
Click to expand...

It's kinda academic....since they could have as many sites as they wanted, with different user names....

I suspect there are nire than one way to do things...and all of them could be correct.

Coming from RA, where accounts were based on the domain names, not the user names caused my customers to have to be re-educated, and then the move to a new provider with a newer version of DA caused them some more pain.

I dont have the guts to tell them:
A. The first way we did it was the right way
until
B.We moved to DA when the second way was the right way
until
C. We moved to a newer DA and the previous two right ways were
wrong and now there is a new right way.

I hope when DA is upgraded on my server I don't have to once again explain to the customers that the old right way is the new wrong way, but we have a way that is currently right.

Thom
 
Wicha on that one. :)

It's cool we're trying to do things "a better way". But the problem is that the solution DA has brought to the table is probably not the best, and a bit precipitated, when companies like ours (all of us) have been doing things for years, and have customers that have been with us for years (most of them in my case)

I think the problem is that they are both called the same. (both public_html folders)

Do you think calling the new public_html folder "shortcuts" or "links" could be the solution?

I asked that in the other thread and was told this is pretty difficult to accomplish.
 
Last edited:
I moved customers from an old server running a different control panel with a totally different directory structure and then only thing that changed for them was of course the control panel. But the way they upload files was the same for them because I created the necessary links so they would not have to change anything in their ftp software. Then I wrote a custom script so that any time new domains were added the links were also created so they could keep on uploading files with the same format they have always used.

No need to explain to customers anything about a change in uploading files.

Bottom line: If you don't like the new way then don't used it.
 
I've removed a couple posts since there were starting to go "off topic".

As a followup, this feature is changeable. That's why we have config files.
http://www.directadmin.com/features.php?id=855
set:
old_public_html_link=1
in your directadmin.conf if you don't like the new method.

The poll results show that things are fairly devided, so I'm pretty sure that either default will generate some pretty good arguments.

I'll be leaving it as is for the time being, again, you can change it in your directadmin.conf file if it's not for you.

John
 
I've removed a couple posts since there were starting to go "off topic".
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing us back to our senses.

Thanks to the ability to have custom scripts and custom php code in the skins and custom templates I have found that I can do almost anything I want if I don't like the default way DA does something. I have never been forced to do something I didn't want to do because of DA. Practically every complaint I see in this whole forum about the way DA does something and every feature request can be overcome with just a few lines of custom code. Thank you for that.
 
DirectAdmin Support said:
this feature is changeable. That's why we have config files.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how we've been setting up new servers. The topic of this thread is a bit redundant at this point really.

What I want to debate about is the possibility of using a different name for the public_html folder that's being used for IP calls. The main reason for this is becuase I, like others who have opinionated in this thread, would actually like to start using the new method, but with creating the confusion of having 2 public_html folders.

Does apache only work with folders named public_html ? Could it be named something else ? Was this already thought of ?

Cheers
 
Hmm.. currently, it's more an issue with DA regarding the naming of public_html. Making it a variable would be possible though, which may prevent users from putting files in it if some other name were used. (it's hardcoded in many places right now, so would need delicate attention to change)

Originally, it was named public_html because that's the default that comes with the apache UserDir option for using ~username.

Would it also be useful to have a file like NO_FILES_HERE_README.txt or something like that in the ~/public_html dir.. hopefully users would then see it, read it, and understand. That's also doable.

John
 
The text file is not a bad idea at all. Sorry, John, but what does "making it a variable" mean?

How about making the folder hidden also?
 
Variable means the option to change it in the directadmin.conf. The code is then replace with a "spot" that the option is place into.. this variable replaces the harcoded "public_html". Just means you can change it ;)

The readme is simple, I can do that.

Hidden, I believe, isn't the same hidden as you may be think with windows.
The definition of "hidden" in linux means that the filename just starts with a dot.. and many file list functions agree to not show those files. Example, the .htaccess is a "hidden" file, even though you can still see it in DA (DA shows hidden files). So if the variable method is implemented, then you can rename it to .public_html if you wanted (starts with a dot).. but users can still see it in DA... DA shows "hidden" files. (they really aren't "hidden" is the point)

John
 
I sure was thinking windows.

Would it not be better to use a more descriptive folder name, like the ones I mentioned, so we can implement this new solution without warning text files, additional configs, templating, tutorial modifications and such ?

:) Cheers !
 
That's where the variables come in.

Note that we can't just "change" it for the next release because there are multiple systems that use that name, so the default name is likely always going to be public_html. If you change the variable, then you'd also have to update those other systems, like your templates, httpd.conf files, etc..

John
 
Updating the other systems is not a problem. We having not been using the new method for too long.

If using a better folder name is possible, and saves us a few headaches in the future, I think we should start using this method now since we are early enough in the ball game.

I will wait patiently for other opinions and views.
 
The ballgame has been in play since 2003. The public_html link has always been used, just with a different link.


One other option that has crossed my mind...
leave ~/public_html as a single domain link.

The idea is to create a 2nd path in parallel, ie:
~/dmnlink
or something like that to be the directory with the domain links in it.
Then the admin would need only to swap around his templates to have it point to dmnlink instead of public_html.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top