Use a directory named private_html

[vpscanban]

I am using DirectAdmin v.1.647. When I add a new domain it will receive Use a directory named private_html. Is there any way to configure the default when adding a new domain to receive Use a symbolink link from private_html to public_html - allows for same data in http and https?

Please guide me. Thanks everyone.

 

[Richard G]

In old Directadmin versions you can use a setting in the directadmin.conf file to achieve the symlink is default.
default_private_html_link=0
change to or add:
default_private_html_link=1
and restart directdamin.

 

[floyd]

I never understood that concept of separating the 2. Why would you do that?

 

[Richard G]

Why would you do that?

It's from the old days as far as I know.

In the old days https was presented from the private_html directory to have a secured website. And http was send from the normal public_html directory.
Probably they thought one should not mix up both and best way was to seperate the two. I'm not sure about that.
At least company's/shops could provide users with a https site and if that could not work (old browser or whatever reason) also a full http shop could be used.
I could be wrong, but that seems a logical explanation.

Seems later on it became clear it doesn't make any (or at least not much) difference so it was changed.

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[floyd]

Even before I started using DA I when I installed a commercial certificate I always used the directory the main website was in. I didn't do it in the old days. It was only when I started using DA that the concept of private_html was introduced to me and I thought "this is stupid."

 

[vpscanban]

In old Directadmin versions you can use a setting in the directadmin.conf file to achieve the symlink is default.
default_private_html_link=0
change to or add:
default_private_html_link=1
and restart directdamin.

thanks for your support. I have done it successfully.

 

[Richard G]

I didn't do it in the old days.

Yes I ment the old days of DA.

 

[HobbyHost]

I never understood that concept of separating the 2. Why would you do that?

It actually made a lot of sense to separate the content served through http and https.

It normally doesn't make sense to spend computing resources on encryption for serving content, unless that is either sensitive content or there is a real risk for MITM/hijacking attacks.

That being said, today computer hardware became much more powerful than what it was, thus encryption overhead is less critical, and in parallel many sites have moved from being mostly static to become mostly dynamic with support for logins, and using encryption in these cases makes sense.

 

[Richard G]

It normally doesn't make sense to spend computing resources on encryption for serving content,

I don't think that SSL certificates use that much resources. Also, other panels didn't do it either.
Maybe it was done to make it more easy some way for the customer or indeed to be able to present two different versions, maybe a site on http and a shop belonging to the site on https. I don't know.
I'm glad anyway it's gone now.

 

[floyd]

That being said, today computer hardware became much more powerful than what it was, thus encryption overhead is less critical, and in parallel many sites have moved from being mostly static to become mostly dynamic with support for logins, and using encryption in these cases makes sense.

I have been doing this since 2000 and never noticed any more slowness when using ssl. Back then everything was slow.