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

[DirectAdmin Support]

Hello,

We've been getting several questions about the new way of setting up ~/public_html as a directory with domain links, instead of a link to the default domain.

I'm going to leave the option present in any case, but I'm creating a poll to see if you want the default to go back to the original single link method instead of the directory method.

For anyone who doesn't know why we changed the default, it's so that users can access multiple domains when using http://1.2.3.4/~username/domain.com
The /~username path is the *only* reason that /home/user/public_html exists, but many users seem to think it's the main public_html path, when it's really /home/user/domains/domain.com/public_html, which is why it's causing confusion, and why I'm creating the poll.

Feature link: http://www.directadmin.com/features.php?id=855

John

[jackc]

i don't use this feature, it can have some security problem because open_basedir won't work anymore. i think we should have option to disable it.

[floyd]

I like it because it also keeps people from uploading to the wrong website and destroying it.

Personally I don't use the ~username method. I use http://1.2.3.4/domain.com.

[tlchost]

My customers, as well as I, felt blind-sided. I moved to a new provider and found that my FTP program wasn't working....and soon after the customers started asking questions.

I contacted my provider, who explained the correct settings...and I passed on the information to my customers.

So, after all of that, I discover that none of the changes needed to be made if the system would have been configured to work as older versions of DA worked.

I suspect that one needs to be able to configure DA for either method...I certainly don't want to re-educate the customers again.

It appears that the method of allowing one to have multiple domains administered by a user is a boon to the technical savy customers....while the folks who are not geeks exhibit the "Deer Caught In The Headlights" look when you attempt to exlain to them how to configure their FTP clients with the new and improved, longer and more confusing path.

[floyd]

There was no change for my customer because I had always told them to use /domains/domainname/public_html. I have never had a customer who only had one domain so that is the way they would had to do it from there first day.

I did however have some that saw the public_html link in /domains and took upon themselves to upload to that folder and destroy an existing web site. In tutorials they are often told to upload there site to public_html. That is fine if you only have one site. With the new way it is impossible for them to unknowingly upload to the wrong domain. It is much safer.

The only change for me was that now there is less confusion for my customers who were confused by the public_html link.

Because uploading to the wrong domain was such a problem what I eventually had to do was, using one of the custom script, delete the public_html link every time a new domain was added. In the same script I added a link in /var/www/html to the domain so that they could see there domain before changing dns using http://1.2.3.4/domain.com

So in the end it really doesn't matter to me. Everybody already has the ability to do it either way. I believe the old way may be a little simpler but if a customer has more than one domain it is far more dangerous.

[demz]

i changed back to the old method..

I personally like it very much.. why multiple domains to show?
Domains are registered usually up in 2 hours MAX, and when a new customer orders multiple domains, they usually order the same domain/website with multple TLD's.. So showing them apart is no profit. here..

Also explaining ftp to the customer is easier.. Login -> double click public_html and tada..

But for the people who like it, no problemo! as long as DA leaves the old option in it :)

[demz]

I believe the old way may be a little simpler but if a customer has more than one domain it is far more dangerous.


Then sale the customer multiple webhosting accounts :) :) :)

[floyd]

they usually order the same domain/website with multple TLD's.

Not mine.

Then sale the customer multiple webhosting accounts

Multiple domain hosting under one web hosting account has been around for at least 8 years. This is not a new thing. Most hosting companies offer it for less than $10 per month now.

[demz]

Sure ofcourse! i do also! Mine can add 25 domains if they want..

But if i can i sale more accounts for one customer..
Why add 4 websites under one account if you can make money 4 times.

Have to say this only happens with end-user customers.. The geeks/smart people already know what the hosting has to offer and make use of it..

[Dauser2007]

agree IP/domain

BR.,

[King Justice]

Okay, please try and bear with me because I'm a total n00b and am still learning more and more daily about DirectAdmin and its features.

This feature you are proposing is similar to how cPanel sets up domains right?
Domains that aren't propogated to the correct IP can be accessed, by what you're saying, at:

IP.Address.Here/~directadmin_username/domain.com

?

If so, I do like that better...reason is because it has the unique username in there instead of a "domains".

But why would that be public_html directory? I can see a site being able to be accessed via that URL...but that shouldn't be the public_html directory to upload files should it, the root folder? The root folder should be:

IP.Address.Here/~username/domain.com/public_html

...should it not?

[DirectAdmin Support]

The root folder should be:

IP.Address.Here/~username/domain.com/public_html

...should it not?No, public_html means files for apache to use.. and since apache is the one actually reading the files, we would assume going to be used anyway, so it's not needed, it would be redundant. The path to upload files, and the path to view them are going to be different.

In any case, I'll likely keep the default as it is for now, where it's:

IP/~user/domain.com

This may change if the argument becomes really one sided, but it's currently split. Also, this is an option, so you can flip it to the old method if you want.

John

[Orien]

I don't have any problems with the new system.

[hostpc.com]

Me, myself, I like the old method better. Older users of Directadmin are used to this, and confusing them will just push them to another panel.

[PaulT]

Posted message in discussion form;

Essentially - files in the new folder structure that use a PHP upload report an error - can't find temporary folder. The error refers to PHPs temp folder ie the folder where it places files before they are moved/processed etc to their final destination folder.

my server provider (I'm a reseller) says that's the way it is now!

I will have to find another provider - as the PHP upload is a major part of every dynamic site I build - been using it for years.

tested the upload scripts (more than one) on my own local server - fine
tested the upload scripts on my remote server - old folder structure - fine
tested the upload scripts on my remote server - new folder structure - running from ip/~username - OK except the images need to be defined with an absolute server path ip/~username/folder forimages

now anyone can get the username of the client just by looking at the images
BAD!

tested the upload scripts (more than one) on my remote server - new folder structure - running from www/domainname/ - same error
WORSE!


I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people soon discover DA has a problem with this

appreciate any help

Paul

[cyberneticos]

Hello DA,

First off, thanks for asking our opinion on this.

I think it's a good aproach to fix the "only one domain can be set as default" problem, but I would only change one thing (which I agree is not a simple thing to change)

As I posted on the other thread related to this one, I think the best solution is to rename the public_html folder (the one that contains de symbolic links) to "shortcuts" or "links" or anything different than public_html, just so everything is as clear as possible.

How apache can make this happen internally or if it's even possible ?

I have no idea.

If this is not possible, I am ok with the change. It does solve a problem, and we will just have to get used to it.

Cheers

[ehsanch]

we moved some domains with joomla/mambo from cpanel and all of them become unaccesible because ther config require /home/username/public_html and we have to reconfig all of them

[ehsanch]

a bug on changing to old method (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?p=132541#post132541)

[floyd]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people soon discover DA has a problem with this

No its your script that is misconfigured. My php uploads work just fine.

[Rookie]

For me, I think this update has been a complete nightmare! :eek:

My customers are installing files into the wrong directory ALL the time. (I think this has to do with the "default setup page" saying that they need to upload their pages to the "/public_html/" folder, not the new one). :confused:

Anyway! I wish it was back to the old way because I am now finding that clients consistently upload to the incorrect directory, and then delete the directory completelty :eek:

PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK... PLEEEEEASE

Cheers
Rookie

[tlchost]

For me, I think this update has been a complete nightmare!

PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK... PLEEEEEASE


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.

[floyd]

<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.

[cyberneticos]

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.

[floyd]

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.

[cyberneticos]

Good for you Floyd !!! :D

[cyberneticos]

:rolleyes:

[tlchost]

The original way was chaotic for users who have more than one domain.

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

[cyberneticos]

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.

[cyberneticos]

The old right is the new wrong

hehehe just saw that ;)

[floyd]

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.

[DirectAdmin Support]

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

[floyd]

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

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.

[cyberneticos]

this feature is changeable. That's why we have config files.

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

[DirectAdmin Support]

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

[cyberneticos]

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?

[DirectAdmin Support]

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

[cyberneticos]

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 !

[DirectAdmin Support]

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

[cyberneticos]

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.

[DirectAdmin Support]

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

[cyberneticos]

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

Uhhhmm I think this is what I've been saying all along:

Create a 1.2.3.4/~user/shortcuts path

"shortcuts" or "links"

Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough.

[floyd]

Is there something wrong with using http://serverip/domain.com ?

I place a link in /var/www/html to the domain's public_html directory and then the user see nothing and they can see their web site.

[cyberneticos]

Do apache configs on all distro setups use /var/www/html as docroot ?

[DirectAdmin Support]

Floyd, the IP/domain.com method should be fine, to the same effect as ~username.

The /var/www/html is the default for the server IP with our setup.. I can't comment on all apache setups, but I'd assume we're not the only ones with it as a base.

John

[cyberneticos]

Then I guess, that makes two of us who wonder why can't DA just use the /var/www/html to create the links,

This would kill 2 birds with one stone I think:

1st stone: the old problem
2nd stone: users seeing the folder and confusing it as something else

Right ?

[floyd]

I am just saying that is what solved the problem for me. None of my customers are confused now. None upload to the wrong directory. The can all preview their domains. No usernames are given away.

I brought it up again because nobody really commented on it before.

[DirectAdmin Support]

Of course it only works for the server IP address, and not the IP the user is one (if he's on an IP which is not the server), but that's not a big deal if you just set the server IP link in the welcome emails.

Who else likes the serverIP/domain.com method?

Again, an Admin can use any method he wants, post install.

The real question I'm after is what should the default be.
The solution we chose may not satisfy everyone, but I'm going for majority.

The install time choice is an option that could also be looked at.

John

[cyberneticos]

My answer to your question:

Floyd's solution.

If I have 200 users on a shared server and only 3-4 use a unique IP, who cares ?? This solution solves the problem for the most part, and more importantly, does not craete any new ones.

I don't mind creating script to fix a problem, but if you can fix a problem by default, then even better for all of us.

[floyd]

I think cyberneticos and I actually agree on something now. Run for the hills the world is ending. :) :)

John, I like the server ip method the best. But you know I am going to do whatever I want in the end.

The trouble I had in the beginning is my core customer base has more than one domain in their one user account. In fact how I got into the business was being one of the first to offer multiple domains in one account. With the public_html link in their home directory several users destroyed their sites by uploading the wrong directory. The link changed every time they added a domain and they could never be sure of what domain it was linking to. I had to get rid of the link altogether.

With any public_html in the user's home directory I can see potential problems and no benefits. With the link in /var/www/html I see no problems and lots of benefits.

[floyd]

And even the few that have unique ip's you can give them the server ip for preview purposes.

If more people agree then it really goes back to page one of this thread.

[cyberneticos]

Most of the ones who have unique IPs are for SSL , which means they are probably not new customers, which means they probably already have there domains pointing to the server which means the probably won't be using the IP to see thier domain.

Which means.. , John ??

[DirectAdmin Support]

Ok, so the consensus is that IP/domain.com is good? ;)
Do you guys want me to implement that? (links in /var/www/html) or would just make a simple how-to for it suffice?

Question goes back to the public_html link.
From what I'm hearing, the directory method, although more logical in it's process, is in reality more confusing for Users?
Possibly a 3rd option to disable it completely?

John

[cyberneticos]

1- Get rid of the new public_html dir
2- Implement the /var/www/html solution

Yes, I think this is the very best solution.

[jlandes]

Ok, so the consensus is that IP/domain.com is good? ;)
I like this.
Do you guys want me to implement that? (links in /var/www/html) or would just make a simple how-to for it suffice?
Possibly an option in the directadmin.conf file to turn it on or off. However, the choice is up to you. I'm quite content with scripting it.
Question goes back to the public_html link.
From what I'm hearing, the directory method, although more logical in it's process, is in reality more confusing for Users?
Possibly a 3rd option to disable it completely?
Options are good. Then the server admins can have it setup the way they want.

[jlandes]

See this post (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=198&page=2) for another option that might help solve the issue too, at least for viewing domains that haven't resolved yet. See Webcart's (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132038&postcount=27) message for the tip. It seems this post is dealing with the same issues.

[tlchost]

The real question I'm after is what should the default be.
The solution we chose may not satisfy everyone, but I'm going for majority.

The install time choice is an option that could also be looked at.



While I favor the old method, I would hope you now only give us options in a configuration mode, but that whatever method we choose would make the appropriate changes in the welcome template.

You might also consider scriots that would let us change sites created under one method to whatever we use as default.

Thanks

Thom

[floyd]

Just remember if you use the old way then you may have a big security problem.
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132857&postcount=34

[floyd]

See this post for another option

That of course can work too. I know I said serverip/domain but what I really use is hostname/domain so I am using what I think to be simpler for the user. They already know what the hostname is because that is what I use for the nameservers.

There are a number of ways to accomplish the same thing. Its hard to know which should be a default. Could make people choose at setup time. If they don't want to choose then they probably really don't care so any method could be used as a default.

[smtalk]

Right, all PHP settings set in virtualhost configuration file are missing in this way :) (including safe_mode, open_basedir and others)

[floyd]

in this way

Which way? We have mentioned a few.

[smtalk]

~user and ~user/domain :)

[floyd]

I didn't know that. So you are against using ~user/domain as well.

Its seems like to me any method is not going to take into account any user specific httpd.conf settings. The defaults will be used.

[smtalk]

Yes, floyd, you are right :) That's why I wanted to see domain.hostname.com or user.hostname.com, but it's not implemented yet (in this way all settings as open_basedir, safe_mode and others will remain).

[cyberneticos]

What's the prob with keeping the old method and also having DA create links in /var/www/html ???

John, what are you leaning towards so far ?

[DirectAdmin Support]

Doing domain.com.hostname.com isn't hard to do by adding a 2nd VirtualHost into your virtual_host.conf (or virtual_host2.conf) templates. I won't be adding it because it would double the number of virtualhost on systems that are already very close to topping out their filedescriptor limits.


Right now I'm leaning towards all domains in /var/www/html (as an option, off by default at first).. and back to the simple public_html link pointing to just 1 domain (option will still be there to set it to a directory if you want).

The confusion is mainly with the naming of the link.. "public_html" implies that's where the files go, but with the directory method, it's not exactly true.

The actual ~username/domain.com is "correct" in the logical sense, but would work better with a different name for public_html, so I may just undo it.

I'm in no rush to finalize any of this as I don't want to be changing it again, so I want to make sure the correct "default" solution is used.

John

[cyberneticos]

Right now I'm leaning towards all domains in /var/www/html (as an option, off by default at first).. and back to the simple public_html link pointing to just 1 domain (option will still be there to set it to a directory if you want).

Excellent !

The confusion is mainly with the naming of the link.. "public_html" implies that's where the files go, but with the directory method, it's not exactly true.

100% with ya.

The actual ~username/domain.com is "correct" in the logical sense, but would work better with a different name for public_html, so I may just undo it.

Excellent !

I'm in no rush to finalize any of this as I don't want to be changing it again, so I want to make sure the correct "default" solution is used.
John

100 % with ya.

:D

[jlandes]

Doing domain.com.hostname.com isn't hard to do by adding a 2nd VirtualHost into your virtual_host.conf (or virtual_host2.conf) templates. I won't be adding it because it would double the number of virtualhost on systems that are already very close to topping out their filedescriptor limits.


Right now I'm leaning towards all domains in /var/www/html (as an option, off by default at first).. and back to the simple public_html link pointing to just 1 domain (option will still be there to set it to a directory if you want).

The confusion is mainly with the naming of the link.. "public_html" implies that's where the files go, but with the directory method, it's not exactly true.

The actual ~username/domain.com is "correct" in the logical sense, but would work better with a different name for public_html, so I may just undo it.

I'm in no rush to finalize any of this as I don't want to be changing it again, so I want to make sure the correct "default" solution is used.

John
I'm with you on this one John. :)

[cyberneticos]

Veridict :confused:

[floyd]

What are you confused about? John said he wasn't going to rush into finalizing anything until he was absolutely sure of the right thing to do since he doesn't want to have to change it again. All we can do is wait now. He has a lot of options to think about.

[cyberneticos]

What's the verdict, John ?

[Rookie]

GREAT DECISION... It's all back as it was in the New Version of DA...

Hip Hip Hooray...

Rook

[steelgrass]

I'm really confused now - but it's not the first time... ;)

Am I right assuming that after the latest DA update adding "old_public_html_link=0" to directadmin.conf will guarantee me the method listed in this poll as:

A directory with domain links inside, as it currently is

I really liked the username/domains/ structure that was introduced a couple of updates ago and would like to keep on using it.