View Full Version : New directory structure

10-27-2003, 07:09 AM
Is it me or does the new directory structure make no sense? Sheesh, it's frustrating.

10-27-2003, 10:41 AM
It takes a couple hundred hours of exploring to get used to ;) But if you do have any specific questions, don't hesitate to post them here, I'm sure someone will be able to help you out.

10-27-2003, 03:28 PM
Is it me or does the new directory structure make no sense? Sheesh, it's frustrating.

There is kinda a "sense" to it but at first glance it is hard to see. Like Fayez said after you dig around in it for awhile it makes a bit more sense.


10-27-2003, 08:36 PM
I don't know Shawn, the logic isn't obvious to me. I've got 3 aliases in my root all named some variation of Home, ad there are links in a number of other sub directories.

And all the old links are there too. I still don't understand why old links were retained. Seems like a script should have done this.

I've put off cleaning up and dealing with the new structure until I am sure that it is stable, and of course I'm still waiting for a real shell account... one of the reasons that I choose WH BTW :)

-- greg

10-28-2003, 05:55 AM
Have you tried deleting those home symlinks? I don't think they do anything anyway, and you could always recreate them if you needed to. And about the other links, they're there to maintain backward compatibility with scripts that were configured on 1.0 servers. So, you could always remove them if they are useless to you - as long as you know what you are doing and are willing to reconfigure some stuff.

And what do you mean by "a real shell account"? ;)

10-28-2003, 10:52 PM
I would consider a "real shell account" one that has full unix capabilites. Since the upgrade my UNIX shell account is very limited... the only commands that are supported on my system is rm, cd, mkdir, chmod, etc., the basic stuff.

But I've got no man pages and almost everything else brings up an error similar to this when I type in who command:

sh: who: command not found

I did put in a low priority request and after 16 days got back the response:

"The missing commands and help pages are something that we will be working on soon. For the time being there are some more pressing issues that our sysadmins are working on for us. Thanks for your patience."

That ticket was marked as resolved and 30 days later it is not fixed. Since it was marked as resolved I guess that means that at some later time I must put in another request when the system(s) have finally stabalized and maybe at that time it will be dealt with.

I'm really not trying to gripe and I do understand there are other problems that are of a much higher priority... I'm just glad that I don't make a living with my site and my sites have been pretty stable for some period now.

But at the same time, I'm not a unix guru, and not having man pages or the commands they reference as a resource, doesn't help me either :)

-- greg

10-29-2003, 12:37 AM
On the other hand, you can easily install all the software that you need. Which is what most of us do who need the extra capabilities.

I have man pages on my local computer, plus there are sets of man pages on the web, so there is no need for them on Shell account.

I think they have setup the sites well. 95% of the site owners have no need of man pages, extra utilities and such. Most of them have no idea of what a shell account is anyway. The other 5%, such as ourselves, are quite comfortable installing what we need.

I have a slowly growing collection of 'missing programs', which you can pick up from:
and I'll add more to them as I need them.

10-29-2003, 12:42 AM
It seems like its only the upgraded installations have the messy directory structure, possibly it was the only way of automatically upgrading all the sites.

One reason for all the symlinks is that as customers install scripts and such, if they don't work then it will generate support calls. So, many hosting places just make sure that as many possible configurations are covered, and the easiest way to do that is using symlinks.

Symlinks look messy in a directory listing but shouldn't effect the operation of the site at all.