before I begin I have compiled apache php and mysql from source and have had no problems with setting up a server. OpenSuse is so f****** unreal. I mean come on a seperate file for every loadable extension to php, are you insane? Another couple of insane apache confs a separate file for listen. bravo fricken Einstein would have been proud. You see the problem with computers are the humans who need complication to pat themselves on the back for making computers so complicated. Why were computers invented? I don’t think it was to make life more complicated. I guess the developers expect everyone with an opensuse desktop is going to run a massive webserver with millions of customers. I am not sorry for this rant because you butcher good software and then pat yourselves on the back and instead of explaining why for every butcher in the documentation it usually boils down to some opensuse mascot fanboy ( or girl ) to ridicule anyone for asking “what are you people thinking?”. it’s an adapt or question nothing mentality Kind of like Microsoft.
OLD JOKE:
how many microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
ANSWER:
none, darkness is the new standard.
Well, well, well, I hope your blood pressure has gone down.
Next time, why not save your health and install every extension available. Surely that’s simpler than building from source. Or build from source if you like, that’s no crime.
And please stay away from Debian or you will burst an artery because they chop things up even finer there.
Bit of a bad attitude here…
Why did you have to compile i doubt if you need all the extensions.Just a matter of choosing the ones you need in yast
It’s the same in windows or any other distro with separate config files for php mysql and apache.
You can use Yast to do basic server configuration
He does have a point though, suse give absolutely no explanations in the default config files which makes it extremely hard to set things up.
Ubuntu (and I assume also Debian) config files have explanations of all the options written in the config files that make life a lot easier.
I tried to change my server from ubuntu to opensuse and gave up because apache was so much more complicated to setup. It seems opensuse uses non-standard settings and folders. I never even got as far as PHP or MySQL!
Having to search online and read through pages of incoherent nonsense might be fun for some people, but for ordinary people who just want a simple web-server up and running, it is extremely infuriating.
Why so many php module packages. If he had tried installing every php module package he would have understood. php5-mysql will drag in the mysql client libraries if not already present. php5-ldap will drag in the ldap client libraries. php5-gd will drag in gd libraries. And so on. It’s not good practice to install lots of extra libraries if you are not going to need that php module.
BTW this is not peculiar to SUSE. You’ll see the same thing in RHEL, etc.
But of course there is nothing stopping him from installing every module if he doesn’t want to make any decisions.
Why SUSE divides up the Apache configuration into so many files. Well, actually there is nothing stopping you from just adding everything you want into httpd.conf and ignoring the subdirectories conf.d and vhosts.d. Sure, do it that way if you like, it’s not a crime. A monolithic config file is what some people are used to from earlier apaches but you don’t have to panic when you have more choice. There is nothing non-standard about these subdirectories. It’s part of Apache’s capabilities. Novell hasn’t gone and hacked this feature in.
Personally I like being able to use one file per vhost and one file per webapp. I can see squirrelmail.conf and know that’s where I have to adjust things. And it makes it easier for packages to add their configs too.
But as I said, this is just 1/2 kg of one and 500g of the other when it comes to personal additions. Apache doesn’t care, it’s treated as one big config file anyway.
ken_yap I compile lamp about six months ago it wasn’t hard at all. Didn’t even have to butcher the conf files. It was weird that the default of apache helped me be more productive faster than searching in the file mess you call a conf file. I’ve worked with debian and it to was easier to work with. It was funny to with php I just had to add or remove a “;” if I wanted to load a module or add extension=yourafanboy.so. It was just mind boggling how a nice set of softwares could be butchered by learnded peoples like yourselves.
You know I work with Debian too and I have no problems adapting myself to different ways of organising software. And your rant is misdirected, I’m not one of the developers. I just use it.
I never have to comment or uncomment *.so lines in SUSE. When I install the module, it’s automatically enabled. There’s just one line in /etc/sysconfig/apache2 that specifies the apache modules enabled. There are *.ini files in /etc/php5/apache2 that list the PHP modules enabled.
As I said, if you want to compile it all yourself, nobody’s stopping you. If you want to use one big httpd.conf file, that’s fine too, but if you remember, Debian also uses apache subdirectories for configs, to wit: mods-enabled and sites-enabled.
Must be sad to only be able to see the world in a fixed way.
you don’t get it do you have you seen a Imagik.so floating in the repositories for php 5 I didn’t think so. I’m really sorry for the rant I keep forgetting this is just a testing ground for enterprise SUSE. Every opensuse distro is always riddled with bugs that a great community fixes and then a new enterprise suse comes out how cost effective and what a novell idea.
What’s the problem, you can compile a single .so for PHP5 and still use other .so from packages?
Just because you like to compile your own doesn’t mean other ways of dealing with software are not valid.
In real-life one often has to be flexible and adopt different strategies for different situations. Sometimes all choices are difficult. A RHEL server I maintain had only PHP 5.1 because that’s the official level but I needed 5.2 because of a showstopper bug in 5.1. So I was faced with rebuilding all of PHP from source. Fortunaely I located a repo that had built 5.2 packages for RHEL and CentOS. But if I had to, I would have compiled from source. I don’t have fixed ideas of “the only way to do things”.
Anyway you got your rant, hope you enjoy the software, or not, as the case may be. I’m pretty sure that I have more fun with software than you do, from the sounds of it.
I’d like to mention something here >> LAMP is ready with Suse installation. Just needs some configuration using YaST which takes less than 5 minutes (and also in graphical mode). I’m very happy with Suse and one main reason is my Final Semestar project is running very well (Apache, Php, MySql included). Whatever extra i need can install through YaST. So why one should go for source package!! Why increasing BP in this polluted world!!
I think this is a familiararity issue. I have been running LAMP servers on openSuSe for a few years now. With each release I get more profficient at setting things up. I have clients using CentOS, ClarkConnect, RHEL, Debian etc. Every time I go near them, I spend some time scratching my head.
1/2 a kg or 500g? I’d be happy with either. I like the segmented approach. Everything in its place…but if you don’t know where that place is…
I can see the argument against and for. I wont fence sit. I am for the OpenSuSE layout. Why? Becuase I know and understand it.
The L in LAMP is still a **** sight easier and more reliable than substituting it with MS, regardless of the flavour!
Ken_yap - you wish you had more fun. Yes I can understand adopt and adapt. But you can always question. You should try Gentoo it screams.
freedguy - I would never try to bring ethics into this forum. You have to know what ethics are first and I do not have time to explain.
sahaittanmoy - Well when you compile the source you get the pure intended version of the application and then you can sit back in amazement and wonder why someone would spend all that time to patch it to a select audience.
Why has not been answered it has been avoided.
let me rephrase my first post so you can understand it better
Why has this godsend of an awesome Linux distribution ( way better than any OS out their, the developers must be gods sent from heaven ) decided to grace the php.ini file with their unquestionable wisdom to thoughtfully put every extension into their own file? Or have they deemed that the mighty god Debian forged a bow strung package that was easier to manipulate?
Is that the proper way to format a question here?
Can Someone answer this or can I be belittled some more.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
OP, you keep insisting there is a problem, when I have shown that OpenSUSE is no more and probably less problematic than other distros; you just have to understand the logic of the arrangement and go with the flow instead of bring a grumpy troll making wild accusations about the intentions of the OpenSUSE project and its developers.
Actually there is a problem and that is your grumpiness. But this is open source software and you should feel free to use something else and go rant somewhere else. Lots of us do use something else some of the time when appropriate and we don’t go ranting.
How about you come back after you’ve gotten rid of the arrogance?
Perhaps a walk outside every now and then would do you some good - you seem to be gripped in what people would call nerdrage*.
nerdrage
Nerdrage is both the emotion felt when a nerd is exposed to something that directly contradicts the core beliefs of their obsession, and the reactionary diatribe by the nerd that inevitably follows.
While dsiembab may have been in bad form raising his issue, I have to say I agree. It is unnecessarily complicated to Include separate .conf files for every setting and LoadModule directive in httpd.conf. I’ll be completely honest – I don’t think I’ve ever set httpd.conf options (other than for a VirtualHost) through a gui, and when you’re more comfortable with using vi than KWrite or what have you, it’s a real pain in the ass. Is this a requirement for YaST2? I think it would have been better to have the HTTP Server management module parse the main httpd.conf file and leave the file in a format seen on most web servers out there. In fact, as a web developer and server administrator (many servers over the years), I have never encountered an Apache configuration that separated configuration directives into Include files to this extent. Writing the code to run the file through a regexp would have taken only slightly more effort than for listing the files in a directory.
To enable an apache2 module simply edit /etc/sysconfig/apache2 and add the name to the list in APACHE_MODULES.
To add a virtual host, create a file in vhosts.d called something.conf. There is a template you can follow. You also have to enable virtual hosting in listen.conf.
To configure an apache app, usually there will or should be a file in conf.d. e.g. squirrelmail.conf. This is where you put your webapp permissions and any special settings needed by the app.
To configure a https host, add SSL to APACHE_MODULES, edit listen.conf and create a SSL host in vhosts.d following the template. You also have to install the cert and key of course.
99% of the time these are the only places you need to edit with a text editor.
What did I say about understanding how the layout works before criticising?
