Most DA users are not unix administrators.
Then that's something that *should* change. Why? Because people who don't know at least the basics, won't get very far with out trial and error. What's wrong with trial and error then? Why spoon feed the people that don't know how to install a program?
I'd rather DA say "Da requires this, this, and this. Here's the urls to download, install, and obtain FAQ about them." Imagine how much more time would be open to resources such as making the panel faster!
The other install option for DA would be for DA to check first to make sure that (a) all the required services were installed...
This feature in DA's install script apparently doesn't work all the time. I previously did an install on FreeBSD 5.x and while already installing every service by port (like it should be), it downloaded and attempted to copile and install them again.... A HUGE NIGHTMARE!!!!
That's a religious argument. I hereby request that nobody turn this thread into a religious argument about which OS to use; if it happens I'd probably delete the entire thread.
Hahaha. That made me laugh too hard. You really should try and get out more dude.
That said, DirectAdmin does things it's own way, and was originally designed to work in a Red Hat Linux environment. Everything else is a port.
<snip>
The DA staff put a lot of time into CustomApache as their way to keep DA up to date and still allow all of us to have our own custom changes. I don't see how eliminating customapache is a service to the DA community.
Everything *Should* be a port. (port not being compiled binary aka rpm, but compiled source in a source tree on the OS itself) Why is the DA Staff spending time on making a custom apache work when that has nothing to do with the control panel? The only thing apache does is work as a "service" that DA ulitizes. I see a lot of support to get DA to work with such and such.... what about the DA staff working on the control panel it self.... features, speed, etc.
This is another religious argument. How many OS's have you run DA on? Unless you disclose that, your argument is meaningless. For example, we've found DA to be rocksolid on RHEL/CentOS/WBEL.
I would *NEVER* say DA is/was solid on any OS. I would say how ever that the system itself is SOLID. You read too much into text thats not there. Please read carefully!
I have personally worked with DA on Freebsd 4.x, 5.x, and Linux Fedora. Gentoo is my current trusted OS. Even over FreeBSD.
I'd strongly urge that everyone use an officially supported OS for DirectAdmin unless the user is prepared to manage all her/his support needs.
What good is support if theres no good platforms for users to ulitize? It's the chicken and the egg theory.
That said, I'm an advanced unix/linux admin (I've administered unix systems since the 80s and linux systems since 1995, before the kernel version 1.0 release), and I'm very happy to make reasonable (for me) tradeoffs of time and low-level control.
Jeff, you might be an experienced unix admin, but you have an attitude that doesn't fly in a true Unix Admin environment. (Refering to your non-open mind and strong grudge for everything that could be good - aka Mr Scrooge.) You don't want to take chances and seem to always hide on line.
every company needs to advance, open more services grow.
i dont think that Gentoo is what's gonna make DA rich/poor.
I totally agree! If anything, the support of Gentoo by DA will not only bring more customers, but will provide a lot more $ for DA to advance on.
(seriously joking)