Which server control panel is better?

[Erwin]

Originally Posted by Zachery

Not for lazy people at all, its for busy people, if i had a line of servers i wouldnt want to go and run a ton of updates on serveral servers, recompiling apache php mysql every time there is an update on every box could become very time consuming, instead i can just click a few buttons or run a script in ssh and bam, its all done for me.

I admit it, I AM LAZY. I have quite a few servers running my forums and I like the cPanel scripts. I don't use Fantastico, and nobody should be using .htaccess - you should disable it and use mod_rewrite in httpd.conf instead.

[Natch]

Originally Posted by Erwin

...and nobody should be using .htaccess - you should disable it and use mod_rewrite in httpd.conf instead.

re: not using .htaccess: Why do you say that, Doc?

[AlexanderT]

Originally Posted by Erwin

nobody should be using .htaccess - you should disable it and use mod_rewrite in httpd.conf instead.

This is not making sense. First, why should nobody be using .htaccess?

Second, how does mod_rewrite be an alternative to .htaccess? mod_rewrite is a module that uses a rule-based rewriting engine to rewrite requested URLs on the fly. .htaccess USES mod_rewrite when it comes to parsing rewrite rules within .htaccess. But .htaccess is more; it allows you to set access rules in a per-directory context. How would you do that with mod_rewrite?

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by paulyy

True, but I was actually referring to the user end with all the Fantastico and htaccess password directory functions

Oh I don't use fantastico :/ its the devil

[Dean C]

Originally Posted by AlexanderT

This is not making sense. First, why should nobody be using .htaccess?

Second, how does mod_rewrite be an alternative to .htaccess? mod_rewrite is a module that uses a rule-based rewriting engine to rewrite requested URLs on the fly. .htaccess USES mod_rewrite when it comes to parsing rewrite rules within .htaccess. But .htaccess is more; it allows you to set access rules in a per-directory context. How would you do that with mod_rewrite?

It's far quicker server-side to have all your rules within the httpd.conf file

[Erwin]

Originally Posted by Dean C

It's far quicker server-side to have all your rules within the httpd.conf file

Exactly.

You remove the apache's need to check EVERY single directory for .htaccess when it can all be done in httpd.conf.

[Erwin]

Add this to httpd.conf to stop lookup for .htaccess:

AllowOverride None
Options None

Then, add your .htaccess rules into httpd.conf itself - it's basically similar to what you would put in .htaccess.

[Erwin]

Originally Posted by AlexanderT

This is not making sense. First, why should nobody be using .htaccess?

Second, how does mod_rewrite be an alternative to .htaccess? mod_rewrite is a module that uses a rule-based rewriting engine to rewrite requested URLs on the fly. .htaccess USES mod_rewrite when it comes to parsing rewrite rules within .htaccess. But .htaccess is more; it allows you to set access rules in a per-directory context. How would you do that with mod_rewrite?

You can specify each directory in httpd.conf with respect to rules. Trust me, it will reduce your server load if you have heavy web access. In any case, feel free to research this yourself - don't take my word for it.

[Natch]

Thanks for this: I will have to look into the research on the http.conf and how best to share access to this between two server admins !! maybe use a CVS system to make modifications?