I'm going to disagree with this one. While there are times we have stepped in to create workarounds, you likely have also seen our "UP-####" cases, which indicates we've filed a case with the specific provider of the tool, whether that is Exim, CentOS, or wherever that needs to happen.
The problem we run into is that if we customize every single thing from each provider, we have no guarantee if that is compatible with future updates. We'd literally have to spend all our time updating our custom updates to be compatible with future updates, so in fact more things would break. It's just not a sustainable practice.
It's also important to note that everyone needs to follow the RFCs - not just cPanel. If not, the internet wouldn't function.
Yeah, that’s a corporate non-answer if I’ve ever seen one.
Michael wrote:
it is cPanel’s responsibility (because we PAY them for it to be their responsibility!) to correct all upstream providers fubars.
Since I used the word “all” I guess I gave you that out.
Lets not pick nits, you know what I mean. cPanel does customize things to make servers work like they should work. If you look at the screenshot you just sent me, cPanel has customized this issue itself by using a default value that is not the RFC value (snarky thought, unless whee! 998 = 2048).
PS: And we both know that RFCs are not magically always correct. This issue itself invalidate your last sentence...
This is a fundamental difference of opinion that you and I will have.
I see cPanel as a product that a server administrator chooses to use on their servers.
You see cPanel as an all-encompassing server administrator replacement.
Perhaps the rest of the world agrees with you - I don't.
Hi Sparek,
As you alluded to, cPanel is a cost/benefit analysis decision for most. I (you/consumers) have two basic choices;
A) Hire someone, near full time, to handle all my servers.
This leaves me with a single point of failure and only having the resources of one ‘brain.’ This also leaves the person I hire constantly looking for additional work and rarely/never being fully employed.
B) Pay for a web hosting control panel system.
This, arguable per Rex, should provide a vaster knowledge base (more ‘brains’) that results in better solutions and significantly more functional servers. For the server admin themselves, they may make a lesser $/hr, but they are full time employed, so their total earnings per year are higher.
Most consumers chose B) because the cost (US~100s to low 1,000s) is so significantly smaller than A) (US~10s of thousands).
I'm also probably much older than most everyone else that uses cPanel and I can remember when knowledge and skill of solving your own server administration problems was important.
Based on your writings, we are not that different in age. Before you had to do it yourself because there wasn’t anyone to do it for you, so yes it was vitally important. There also wasn’t that much (total) demand for server administration/management, so there wasn’t any real profit to a firm like cPanel to exist. Besides which, if I never have to dig through the guts of a Solaris or BSD UNIX server again to fix something I’ll be extremely happy.
# # #
Have to go update a bunch of servers...
Be well all,
Michael
Edit:
PS: Rex, please!, get someone to update that article. It's one of the first search engine results.