Talk:cPanel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back End Issues As Of Early 2010[edit]

I am restoring the backend section I originally added, which was deleted by 208.74.121.148.

If you purchase the 2008 book Learning Perl, and read about all the wonderful changes between Perl 5.8 and Perl 5.10, you'll be disappointed when you check the version of Perl shipping with CPanel (Perl 5.8.8, released in 2006). I have a Hostmonster account that uses CPanel and I just logged in via SSH to verify it's still the 4 year old version of Perl.

I emailed CPanel support to ask if they ever planned to upgrade to a more recent version of Perl, and they claimed they couldn't because CPanel is itself written in Perl. If you want a screenshot of the email or something, let me know.

From a previous ancient version disappointment with Postgres with the same webhosting company, I learned that CentOS disowns their Linux distro once something like CPanel has been built on it. For all intents and purposes, on shared webhosting sites, CPanel therefore is the operating system because the underlying Linux has been customized, at least according to a CentOS developer in another email.

This defacto OS status makes it all the more strange that user 208.74.121.102 would say CPanel has never supported Python. I can log into a Python 2.4.3 interpreter (again, ancient) right now in my Hostmonster account. You'd be hard pressed to find a Linux distro that doesn't have Python installed by default.

For some reason, the only thing kept up to date on webhosting sites using CPanel appears to be the PHP version. No one from the hosting company to the underlying Linux distro owner seems to want to accept responsibility for the old versions of everything but PHP, but they point instead to CPanel as being responsible for it, at least in my personal experience using cheap shared webhosting providers.

I hope if someone from CPanel is editing the article, they will come to the talk page next time instead of just deleting sections of the article. Biturica (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree...
This is a very important consideration as, over time, being forced to hold back on softwre levels becomes more and more of a problem. Eventually it tends to hold back maintenance / integrity / security of installed applications.
For a product to be soundly supported it is important that it keeps pace with the underlying software environment (programming language, database, etc). Not to do so has a gradual (usually), but increasing (nearly always) effect on the long-term reliability and viability of the product. It can also be in indicator that there could be difficulties with ongoing maintenance vs. resources available. Thus, it is an important aspect of the status and sustainability of a product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.64.227 (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In beta debian[edit]

Debian status changed from In Dev to BETA a while back...cccc


Debian support has been completely dropped, just look at the cPanel website. Where Debian was once listed, Windows Server 2003 is now listed.


Windows Server 2003 is no longer listed, however Windows Server 2008 is.

Weasel Words?[edit]

I don't see any such words (Or did I just miss them?) Are there any left or am I still missing them? CPanel has been used by every hosting provider I've ever used, & most I've looked at. It might also be worth commenting on the market share if anybody knows it. Anybody else see the weasle words?

Networkingguy (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The change to add in the "((Weasel))" tag, [note: really double "{}" instead of double "()"] was made at 13:19, on 6 July 2008. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CPanel&oldid=223980246) I was actually just about to comment myself, that there was a recent edit, to change it from "((Weasel))" to "((Weasel|date=March 2009))".
I agree that it might be appropriate to get rid of the "((Weasel))" tag altogether now; but as long as it remains, the "date" field in it, should probably say "July 2008" rather than "March 2009"!. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I also did not spot any weasel words. If no one finds anything to the contrary in the next 30 days, I think we can safely remove it. Nosnevel (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM) pages[edit]

It makes sense to merge the cPanel and WHM pages as the two interfaces are part of one software package. The installation includes both interfaces and code is shared between them.


Extremely Large Feature List[edit]

Would it be unreasonable to post a link to the corporate website feature list page rather than trying inanely to list every feature? There are rather a lot, and I don't think the page would look clean. Alternatively, we could list the most important features or group them into sections. What would be the best way?Xyrael 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Being bold... RTFantasticDiff. I removed WysiwygPro entirely, as it doesn't appear to be a CPanel feature. Zetawoof 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be another note that mentions cPanel as a popular mechanism used by phishers and adware e-mail scams. For all your lesser hackers, a quick drop by the originating address will result in cPanel. For slightly more intelligent adware, we see that the fake front page quickly turns into a cPanel cover due to bandwidth restrictions or site removal. I don't know if cPanel is popular for clandestine activities because of its ease of use or because of a lack of security. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.78.102 (talkcontribs)

What you're probably seeing is just a result of the fact that a lot of web hosts use CPanel, so, if the user gets dropped from the host due to TOS violations or bandwidth overage, you get a CPanel error page. Zetawoof 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, going to the IP address of a server running cPanel will either give you a "There is no site configured at this address" page, or a "Great Success! Apache is working on your cPanel and WHM Server" page. Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Versions[edit]

There should be a section on versions and improvements and definetely what version it is at right now. 70.111.218.254 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the versions, can someone please expand on it? Daniel15 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think cPanel is on its 11.4.6-RELEASE or newer looking at one of our websites at work, 72.145.158.36
Yeah, the version numbers in the article haven't been updated for a while. I'll update them now :) Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 10:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Builds[edit]

Why was the information on the cPanel builds removed? --Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The EDGE build is best considered the "preview" build as EDGE is used by third party developers who build plug-ins to cPanel/WHM. BETA is mainly for internal use to test things before they propagate to EDGE. Even in that case, the information provided on the page in its current iteration is inaccurate as the latest BETA build was 1 day old, not 81 days old as of writing. Additionally, the RELEASE build is our release version and the default build for new installs. Editors of this entry may wish to consider using the RELEASE build rather than STABLE for "Latest Release." CPanelDavidG (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots[edit]

I see you have screenshots of the domain owner panel, but not of the reseller domain or WHM panels. Would these screenshots be useful in this article? Jrdaigle1000 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The functionality of a reseller varies on a host-to-host basis. However, the functionality provided via the WHM interface to root users is consistent. Additionally, unlike the cPanel interface, the appearance is very consistent across servers. A screenshot of the WHM interface as root would accurately portray the functionality provided by cPanel/WHM. However, if you include a screenshot of WHM as root, you may wish to note that it is of root as not to confuse resellers viewing this entry. CPanelDavidG (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Licensing[edit]

The verbiage "requires monthly license fees" is potentially misleading, as licenses of longer terms are available: cPanel Direct License Pricing page CPanelDavidG (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should probably be changed to something like 'requires license fees'. Otherwise, it could become a continual chase to update the article to keep pace with current supplier's licensing charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.64.227 (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives/Competition[edit]

This article makes no mention of competing products like Webmin. A small section at the end would do nicely. 711Techwood (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a "see more" section which will direct you to the appropriate comparison. --Hm2k (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


FreeBSD Support[edit]

Based soley on my own experiences i've never been able to have cPanel work functionally out-of-the-box on any FreeBSD platform. This would seem to be one of the reasons cPanel lists it as pretty much for advanced users "which essentially seems to mean it doens't work unless you make it work".

So I was considering notating FreeBSD as a supported OS because it doesn't work on it unless you make it work. If you manage to make it work I don't think cPanel will help you with FreeBSD servers running cPanel.

Anyone manage to see it work out-of-the-box on FreeBSD before I make a change?Woods01 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recommend you make such a change unless you can provide a reliable source to support your statement, which is unlikely as it's such a trivial topic. --Hm2k (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

free software downside[edit]

Those who endure cpanel update/upgrade glitches on the web hosting service which they are paying for may not have such a sanguine view of cpanel. I am one, and I loathe it.

The "See Also" section does not mention another tool by name - often a symptom of problematic articles.

I must be the only daily user of cpanel to loathe its scripted quirks.

Rank it with eclipse (I used both eclipse predecessors, WorkBench and Visual Age, at work while using Borland C++ for OS/2 IDE on my own.)

Surely when a package is as problematic as cpanel after this many years, something other than a report from fans is in order.

Recent glitches include:

 reporting as "saved" files which have no change
 flipping encoding on utf-8 BOM files containing a single Japanese utf-8 encoded character in the midst of ANSI text.

Then there are the glitches in using "rename" and hitting Windows delete key on a character instead of backspace - one of the longest standing issues of Unix fanatics scoffing at Microsoft users ( I have both Win and Ubuntu portables - the Win has the bigger screen and better keyboard.)

In the real world people are still using Windows - and those people are not only a large part of wikipedia readers but also customers of web hosting companies - which companies are consolidating under owners who have, what - their own cpanel mavens?

Rank cpanel with Adobe Reader which would love to silent update/upgrade. At least with Notepad++ upgrades I am well-warned and and fore-armed - and am allowed to choose to apply today or no.

G. Robert Shiplett 01:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unix to Linux change[edit]

cPanel is not Unix based. It is Linux based. Linux may be Unix-like, but it is not Unix. cPanel do not even support the BSD version of cPanel anymore. It only runs on RedHat Linux or CentOS Linux. I felt that saying cPanel was unix based was misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.39.92 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

New logo?[edit]

I think their logo changed recently. Like maybe today as Google image search 'cpanel logo' doesn't even show what they have up now. 71.186.147.58 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)GR

Inappropriate Edits[edit]

Requesting rollback of recent change as it appears to be an editorial anecdote with unverified information. Unable to make change due to COI. The update has been tentatively rolled back, with editor review requested.

Turikk (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Turikk: It was unsourced (WP:V) information about a (presumably) living person (WP:BLP) and unencyclopedic, to boot, so you were right to remove it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)