Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226567 > unrolled thread

Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-08-30 18:30 +0200
    Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-08-30 19:10 +0200
      Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-08-30 19:30 +0200
        Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-08-31 21:20 +0200
          Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-08-31 22:10 +0200
            Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2020-08-31 23:00 +0200
              Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 07:50 +0200
              Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 10:40 +0200
                folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in  Apache 2? [SOLVED]) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-09-01 12:50 +0200
                  Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site  in Apache 2? [SOLVED]) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 16:00 +0200
                    Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site  in Apache 2? [SOLVED]) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-09-02 11:50 +0200
                      Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site  in Apache 2? [SOLVED]) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-02 12:00 +0200
                  Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site  in Apache 2? [SOLVED]) Marek Mosiewicz <marek.mosiewicz@jotel.com.pl> - 2020-09-01 21:10 +0200
                Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-09-01 14:10 +0200
                  Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-09-01 15:40 +0200
                    Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED] Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 16:10 +0200
                  Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED] Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2020-09-01 15:40 +0200
                  Folders [was: Why can't I move the document root for a site in  Apache 2? [SOLVED]] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 16:00 +0200
                Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-09-01 15:10 +0200
                  Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-09-01 15:40 +0200
                  Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 16:10 +0200
                    Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-09-01 16:40 +0200
                      Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 16:50 +0200
                Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-09-01 16:10 +0200
                  Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-09-01 16:20 +0200
                    Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?  [SOLVED] John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2020-09-02 02:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#226567 — Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an 
AMD64 machine.

When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as 
expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to 
another folder on the same machine, I get

|Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource. 
Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |

where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer to my 
local server.

I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a link to 
the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are owned by 
the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through the 
link, so it's working.

Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in 
/var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.

A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system 
partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder in on a 
RAID-6 array with lots of space.

When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say just 
change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. However that 
isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the 
Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I want.

Any ideas?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#226570

On 8/30/2020 6:27 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
> I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an
> AMD64 machine.
>
> When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as
> expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to
> another folder on the same machine, I get
>
> |Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |
>
> where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer to my
> local server.
>
> I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a link to
> the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are owned by
> the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through the
> link, so it's working.
>
> Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in
> /var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.
>
> A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system
> partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder in on a
> RAID-6 array with lots of space.
>
> When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say just
> change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. However that
> isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the
> Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I want.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>

What are the permissions of the directory in question?

Do you have a directory directive for that location in apache2?

--
John Doe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226571

On 8/30/2020 7:08 PM, john doe wrote:
> On 8/30/2020 6:27 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>> I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an
>> AMD64 machine.
>>
>> When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as
>> expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to
>> another folder on the same machine, I get
>>
>> |Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
>> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |
>>
>> where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer to my
>> local server.
>>
>> I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a link to
>> the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are owned by
>> the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through the
>> link, so it's working.
>>
>> Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in
>> /var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.
>>
>> A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system
>> partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder in on a
>> RAID-6 array with lots of space.
>>
>> When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say just
>> change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. However that
>> isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the
>> Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I want.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>>
>
> What are the permissions of the directory in question?
>
> Do you have a directory directive for that location in apache2?
>
> --
> John Doe
>

That is, if you change the 'DocumentRoot' directive you also need to
modify or add a corresponding directory directive in apache2.
Look at '/etc/apache2/apache2.conf' for how it is done for '/var/www'.:

"<Directory /var/www/>
         Options Indexes FollowSymLinks
         AllowOverride All
         Require all granted
</Directory>"

I would change the path of '<directory ...' to whatever your
DocumentRoot directive is pointing to.

--
John Doe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226589

On 2020-08-30 13:24, john doe wrote:
> On 8/30/2020 7:08 PM, john doe wrote:
>> On 8/30/2020 6:27 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an
>>> AMD64 machine.
>>>
>>> When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as
>>> expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to
>>> another folder on the same machine, I get
>>>
>>> |Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
>>> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |
>>>
>>> where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer to my
>>> local server.
>>>
>>> I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a link to
>>> the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are owned by
>>> the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through the
>>> link, so it's working.
>>>
>>> Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in
>>> /var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.
>>>
>>> A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system
>>> partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder in 
>>> on a
>>> RAID-6 array with lots of space.
>>>
>>> When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say just
>>> change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. However 
>>> that
>>> isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the
>>> Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I want.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What are the permissions of the directory in question?
>>
>> Do you have a directory directive for that location in apache2?
>>
>> -- 
>> John Doe
>>
>
> That is, if you change the 'DocumentRoot' directive you also need to
> modify or add a corresponding directory directive in apache2.
> Look at '/etc/apache2/apache2.conf' for how it is done for '/var/www'.:
>
> "<Directory /var/www/>
>         Options Indexes FollowSymLinks
>         AllowOverride All
>         Require all granted
> </Directory>"
>
> I would change the path of '<directory ...' to whatever your
> DocumentRoot directive is pointing to.
>
OK. I had done that already. However I noticed that my AllowOverride was 
for "None" - the same as /var/www/. When I change it to All, I get

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access this resource.Server unable to read 
htaccess file, denying access to be safe
Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at lionsclub.local Port 80


In fact I don't have a .htaccess file anywhere on my sites (as per 
Apache's recommendations). The AllowOverride directive apparently allows 
Apache to look for one, so the problem remains the same.

In response to your first question, the permissions are u:rwx g:rwx 
o:rx. This is slightly looser than the folder in /var/www which removes 
g:w. In both cases the files are owned by me and group:www-data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226590 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On 2020-08-31 15:14, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 2020-08-30 13:24, john doe wrote:
>> On 8/30/2020 7:08 PM, john doe wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2020 6:27 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>>>> I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an
>>>> AMD64 machine.
>>>>
>>>> When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as
>>>> expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to
>>>> another folder on the same machine, I get
>>>>
>>>> |Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
>>>> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |
>>>>
>>>> where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer 
>>>> to my
>>>> local server.
>>>>
>>>> I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a 
>>>> link to
>>>> the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are owned by
>>>> the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through the
>>>> link, so it's working.
>>>>
>>>> Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in
>>>> /var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.
>>>>
>>>> A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system
>>>> partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder in 
>>>> on a
>>>> RAID-6 array with lots of space.
>>>>
>>>> When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say 
>>>> just
>>>> change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. However 
>>>> that
>>>> isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the
>>>> Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I 
>>>> want.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are the permissions of the directory in question?
>>>
>>> Do you have a directory directive for that location in apache2?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> John Doe
>>>
>>
>> That is, if you change the 'DocumentRoot' directive you also need to
>> modify or add a corresponding directory directive in apache2.
>> Look at '/etc/apache2/apache2.conf' for how it is done for '/var/www'.:
>>
>> "<Directory /var/www/>
>>         Options Indexes FollowSymLinks
>>         AllowOverride All
>>         Require all granted
>> </Directory>"
>>
>> I would change the path of '<directory ...' to whatever your
>> DocumentRoot directive is pointing to.
>>
> OK. I had done that already. However I noticed that my AllowOverride 
> was for "None" - the same as /var/www/. When I change it to All, I get
>
> Forbidden
>
> You don't have permission to access this resource.Server unable to 
> read htaccess file, denying access to be safe
> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at lionsclub.local Port 80
>
>
> In fact I don't have a .htaccess file anywhere on my sites (as per 
> Apache's recommendations). The AllowOverride directive apparently 
> allows Apache to look for one, so the problem remains the same.
>
> In response to your first question, the permissions are u:rwx g:rwx 
> o:rx. This is slightly looser than the folder in /var/www which 
> removes g:w. In both cases the files are owned by me and group:www-data.
>
>
OK. Found it. The folder containing all the sites needed to have the 
www-data group. I'm not sure why, since my directory structure is 
something like:

/<folder in root>
     /<folder that is exported>
         /<folder containing all the web sites>
             /<folder grouping sites>
                 /<folder containing one site>
                     /<folder containing site files>

My document root for the site is the full tree. For testing, I used the 
<folder containing one site> in the <Directory> directive. When I 
changed the group ownership on the folder above it, things started 
working. However the <folder that is exported> still has the old 
permissions...

The reason I do things this way is that I work on the sites locally in 
place - so my site/project folder contains all the files for that 
site/project, while the files that are needed on the public site reside 
in a single folder below the <folder containing one site> (which usually 
contains multiple subfolders).

Thanks John!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226591 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On 2020-08-31 15:59, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 2020-08-31 15:14, Gary Dale wrote:
>> On 2020-08-30 13:24, john doe wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2020 7:08 PM, john doe wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2020 6:27 PM, Gary Dale wrote:
>>>>> I'm running Apache 2.4.38-3+deb10u3 on a Debian/Stable server on an
>>>>> AMD64 machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I create a virtual host under /var/www, everything works as
>>>>> expected. However, if I change the virtual host's document root to
>>>>> another folder on the same machine, I get
>>>>>
>>>>> |Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource.
>>>>> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at <servername>.local Port 80 |
>>>>>
>>>>> where I use .local instead of the live site's actual TLD to refer 
>>>>> to my
>>>>> local server.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the same thing if I replace the public_html folder with a 
>>>>> link to
>>>>> the other folder. To be clear, the folder and files in it are 
>>>>> owned by
>>>>> the same account & group. And I can cd to the other folder through 
>>>>> the
>>>>> link, so it's working.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also to be clear, when I go to <servername>.local with the site in
>>>>> /var/www/<servername>.local/public_html, it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> A reason I want to move the sites is that /var is in my system
>>>>> partition, which runs off of a small SSD, while the other folder 
>>>>> in on a
>>>>> RAID-6 array with lots of space.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I search for the problem, I see a lot of "solutions" that say 
>>>>> just
>>>>> change the document root of the vhost and restart Apache 2. 
>>>>> However that
>>>>> isn't working in my case. This is likely Debian specific but all the
>>>>> Debian stuff only shows vhosts under /var/www, which isn't what I 
>>>>> want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are the permissions of the directory in question?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a directory directive for that location in apache2?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> John Doe
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is, if you change the 'DocumentRoot' directive you also need to
>>> modify or add a corresponding directory directive in apache2.
>>> Look at '/etc/apache2/apache2.conf' for how it is done for '/var/www'.:
>>>
>>> "<Directory /var/www/>
>>>         Options Indexes FollowSymLinks
>>>         AllowOverride All
>>>         Require all granted
>>> </Directory>"
>>>
>>> I would change the path of '<directory ...' to whatever your
>>> DocumentRoot directive is pointing to.
>>>
>> OK. I had done that already. However I noticed that my AllowOverride 
>> was for "None" - the same as /var/www/. When I change it to All, I get
>>
>> Forbidden
>>
>> You don't have permission to access this resource.Server unable to 
>> read htaccess file, denying access to be safe
>> Apache/2.4.38 (Debian) Server at lionsclub.local Port 80
>>
>>
>> In fact I don't have a .htaccess file anywhere on my sites (as per 
>> Apache's recommendations). The AllowOverride directive apparently 
>> allows Apache to look for one, so the problem remains the same.
>>
>> In response to your first question, the permissions are u:rwx g:rwx 
>> o:rx. This is slightly looser than the folder in /var/www which 
>> removes g:w. In both cases the files are owned by me and group:www-data.
>>
>>
> OK. Found it. The folder containing all the sites needed to have the 
> www-data group. I'm not sure why, since my directory structure is 
> something like:
>
> /<folder in root>
>     /<folder that is exported>
>         /<folder containing all the web sites>
>             /<folder grouping sites>
>                 /<folder containing one site>
>                     /<folder containing site files>
>
> My document root for the site is the full tree. For testing, I used 
> the <folder containing one site> in the <Directory> directive. When I 
> changed the group ownership on the folder above it, things started 
> working. However the <folder that is exported> still has the old 
> permissions...
>
> The reason I do things this way is that I work on the sites locally in 
> place - so my site/project folder contains all the files for that 
> site/project, while the files that are needed on the public site 
> reside in a single folder below the <folder containing one site> 
> (which usually contains multiple subfolders).
>
> Thanks John!
>
Just to be clear, the folder I had to change permissions on is the 
<folder containing all the web sites. This is many levels above the 
document root,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226596 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On 2020-08-31 21:57, Gary Dale wrote:
<snipped>
> Just to be clear, the folder I had to change permissions on is the
> <folder containing all the web sites. This is many levels above the
> document root,

I think the document root is just where apache2 looks first.
*Don't know if you are supposed to do it like that* but think the actual 
html files can be anywhere so long as they have the right permissions 
and have a link to them in the document root.
Whenever I've changed anything I do.
#!/bin/bash
find /path_to_html_files/ -type d -exec chmod 750 {} \;
find /path_to_html_files/ -type f -exec chmod 640 {} \;
chown -R root /path_to_html_files/*;
chgrp -R www-data /path_to_html_files/*;

remembering if there is any file wants to be executable.

mick

-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226597 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:57:28PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:

[...]

> Just to be clear, the folder I had to change permissions on is the
> <folder containing all the web sites. This is many levels above the
> document root,

To be able to access a file given its path, you need to have read
access to each directory [1] along that path. There isn't another
way, and this is a Good Thing [TM]

Cheers

[1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
   beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?

 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226598 — folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED])

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-09-01 at 04:29, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
>    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?

As I understand matters, it's an extension of the "desktop" metaphor.

Back before computers (and to some extent afterward), people used to
keep files - in the form of physical, paper documents - sorted in manila
folders, and only pull them out of those folders onto the tops of their
desks for actual use; when computers came along and "desktop" was
invented as a metaphor for a hopefully-intutive user-interface paradigm,
they called the things you could use to sort files apart from one
another so that they didn't all appear on the desktop at once "folders"
in an effort to make that similarly intuitive.

And then the terminology stuck.

It probably doesn't hurt that a common way to display them graphically
is in a nested, hierarchical tree style; the way a branch of the tree
collapses when the nodes under it are hidden can be intuitively-enough
called "folding", much as a similar hiding collapse in your more
advanced code-focused text editor is commonly called "code folding" or
"syntax folding". But I think that's secondary.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226606 — Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED])

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 06:48:22AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-09-01 at 04:29, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
> >    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
> 
> As I understand matters, it's an extension of the "desktop" metaphor.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. My interjection was a bit... ironical.
I'm sometimes miffed by the idea that using kiddy language would make
computers more accessible.

I think it's an antipattern, but of course anyone's mileage may vary.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226635 — Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED])

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 01 sep 20, 15:53:17, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 06:48:22AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2020-09-01 at 04:29, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > 
> > > [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
> > >    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
> > 
> > As I understand matters, it's an extension of the "desktop" metaphor.
> 
> Yes, thanks for the reminder. My interjection was a bit... ironical.
> I'm sometimes miffed by the idea that using kiddy language would make
> computers more accessible.
> 
> I think it's an antipattern, but of course anyone's mileage may vary.

Having had to explain "computer stuff" to various people over the time 
(often older than me) I found the folder analogy to be easier to 
understand than the telephone directory analogy.

It could also be a cultural thing: until 1990 only few households here 
even had their own telephone line and telephone directories were even 
rarer.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226636 — Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED])

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:40:21PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

[...]

> > I think it's an antipattern, but of course anyone's mileage may vary.
> 
> Having had to explain "computer stuff" to various people over the time 
> (often older than me) I found the folder analogy to be easier to 
> understand than the telephone directory analogy.

Analogies are a very powerful didactical tool. I do use them all the
time. But that's the first step. To empower people, you need the second
step -- abstraction.

The antipattern I am referring to is to take away this second step.
For bigcorps à la Apple, Microsoft et al this is understandable, since
they want to keep their "customers" dependent on their "services".

From my POV it is, and stays an antipattern. That's why I'm "in" free
software.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226618 — Re: folders (was Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED])

In fact it used to be called directory, before GUI shells emerged.
So MS DOS to dispaly content of "folder" used command named dir.

Cheers,
    Marek Mosiewicz

W dniu wto, 01.09.2020 o godzinie 06∶48 -0400, użytkownik The Wanderer
napisał:
> On 2020-09-01 at 04:29, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
> >    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
> 
> As I understand matters, it's an extension of the "desktop" metaphor.
> 
> Back before computers (and to some extent afterward), people used to
> keep files - in the form of physical, paper documents - sorted in
> manila
> folders, and only pull them out of those folders onto the tops of
> their
> desks for actual use; when computers came along and "desktop" was
> invented as a metaphor for a hopefully-intutive user-interface
> paradigm,
> they called the things you could use to sort files apart from one
> another so that they didn't all appear on the desktop at once
> "folders"
> in an effort to make that similarly intuitive.
> 
> And then the terminology stuck.
> 
> It probably doesn't hurt that a common way to display them
> graphically
> is in a nested, hierarchical tree style; the way a branch of the tree
> collapses when the nodes under it are hidden can be intuitively-
> enough
> called "folding", much as a similar hiding collapse in your more
> advanced code-focused text editor is commonly called "code folding"
> or
> "syntax folding". But I think that's secondary.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226601 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:29:55AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
>    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?

It's a Microsoft Windows thing.  Windows presents directories and
files graphically, and the icon for a directory is a picture of a manila
folder.  Then to make matters worse, they use the word "folder" in
their menus and so on ("New Folder").

So you've got multiple generations of people who grew up learning things
The Windows Way.  Whenever you see someone on this mailing list who
top-quotes, and calls directories "folders", it's a safe bet they were
raised on Windows.

Very few people, even veteran Unix/Linux users, actually know where
the word "directory" comes from.  See, originally, a directory in a
Unix file system was just a tabular list of filenames and inode numbers,
like so:

foo.txt       6890
bar.c         774
bar.h         775
Makefile      4583

Of course, the numbers were encoded in binary, not ASCII, and there
were no newlines afer them, and the filenames weren't space-padded...
but you get the point, I hope.  That's basically what a directory
looked like, and for a long time, you could cat one and actually *see*
it.  (You can't any more.  The kernel and libc forbid it now.)

It's called a directory because it works and looks exactly like a
telephone directory.  You look up a name in the directory to get its
inode number, so you can access the data within the file system.
(And telephone directories are called that because the word "direction"
is an antiquated synoym for "address".  Directory literally means
"address book" or "address list".)

If multiple directories have entries with the same inode number, then
they both refer to the same file.  That's how "hard links" work.  A
field inside the inode keeps track of how many links are believed to
exist to each inode, so the file system can determine when it's safe
to reallocate the file's storage space.  That reference count is displayed
by "ls -l".  It's the number following the permissions.

Now, try to imagine what happens when people who grew up with the
knowledge of how Unix directories actually work meet up with people
who grew up thinking you open a folder by clicking on it with a mouse.

You don't even have to imagine it -- it's happening all around you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226603 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:30:15AM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> Directories go back, even before Windows:  The MSDOS Equivalent to ls is
> dir, which I "guess" means "List Directory".
> 
> Ah yes, the "Good old days".

Yup, but very few of the Microsoft Windows users today have a background
in MS-DOS, or command lines of any sort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226608 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 9:34 AM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:30:15AM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> > Directories go back, even before Windows:  The MSDOS Equivalent to ls is
> > dir, which I "guess" means "List Directory".
> >
> > Ah yes, the "Good old days".
>
> Yup, but very few of the Microsoft Windows users today have a background
> in MS-DOS, or command lines of any sort.
>

Sad but true.   Hmmm...   I have a Windows 8.1 in QEMU-KVM.  When I get
home, I plan to bring up Power Shell.  I will bet that "dir" works there
too.

Kenneth Parker

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226604 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 8:05 AM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:29:55AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
> >    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
>
> It's a Microsoft Windows thing.  Windows presents directories and
> files graphically, and the icon for a directory is a picture of a manila
> folder.  Then to make matters worse, they use the word "folder" in
> their menus and so on ("New Folder").
>
> So you've got multiple generations of people who grew up learning things
> The Windows Way.  Whenever you see someone on this mailing list who
> top-quotes, and calls directories "folders", it's a safe bet they were
> raised on Windows.
>
> Very few people, even veteran Unix/Linux users, actually know where
> the word "directory" comes from.  See, originally, a directory in a
> Unix file system was just a tabular list of filenames and inode numbers,
> like so:
>
> foo.txt       6890
> bar.c         774
> bar.h         775
> Makefile      4583
>
> Of course, the numbers were encoded in binary, not ASCII, and there
> were no newlines afer them, and the filenames weren't space-padded...
> but you get the point, I hope.  That's basically what a directory
> looked like, and for a long time, you could cat one and actually *see*
> it.  (You can't any more.  The kernel and libc forbid it now.)
>
> It's called a directory because it works and looks exactly like a
> telephone directory.  You look up a name in the directory to get its
> inode number, so you can access the data within the file system.
> (And telephone directories are called that because the word "direction"
> is an antiquated synoym for "address".  Directory literally means
> "address book" or "address list".)
>
> If multiple directories have entries with the same inode number, then
> they both refer to the same file.  That's how "hard links" work.  A
> field inside the inode keeps track of how many links are believed to
> exist to each inode, so the file system can determine when it's safe
> to reallocate the file's storage space.  That reference count is displayed
> by "ls -l".  It's the number following the permissions.
>
> Now, try to imagine what happens when people who grew up with the
> knowledge of how Unix directories actually work meet up with people
> who grew up thinking you open a folder by clicking on it with a mouse.
>
> You don't even have to imagine it -- it's happening all around you.
>

Directories go back, even before Windows:  The MSDOS Equivalent to ls is
dir, which I "guess" means "List Directory".

Ah yes, the "Good old days".

Kenneth Parker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226607 — Folders [was: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:05:32AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 10:29:55AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
> >    beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
> 
> It's a Microsoft Windows thing.  Windows presents directories and
> files graphically, and the icon for a directory is a picture of a manila
> folder.  Then to make matters worse, they use the word "folder" in
> their menus and so on ("New Folder").

Thanks. Perhaps I should have marked that thing as somewhat... ironical.

For me, this desktop metaphor is somewhat condescending and conveys
"users are too stupid to digest an abstraction, so we give them
unicorns and rainbows"). That's why I sometimes develop a rash when
exposed to folders ;-)

(Thanks for the reminder on directories: I've "the Bach" on my bookshelf,
so that brings memories; note that Git directories look pretty similar,
but they carry fingerprints instead of inodes. Old is new again :-)

Cheers
 - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226602 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

On 1/9/20 6:29 pm, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:57:28PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Just to be clear, the folder I had to change permissions on is the
>> <folder containing all the web sites. This is many levels above the
>> document root,
> To be able to access a file given its path, you need to have read
> access to each directory [1] along that path. There isn't another
> way, and this is a Good Thing [TM]

I don't know if this is a silly question or not, but can you access a 
file not given its path?


I have the same problem as the OP sometimes and wonder what rules there 
are for allowing access to directories further along the path.





> Cheers
>
> [1] Why people keep insisting in calling those things "folders" is
>     beyond me. They don't "fold" anything, do they?
>
>   - t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226605 — Re: Why can't I move the document root for a site in Apache 2? [SOLVED]

elvis wrote: 
> 
> On 1/9/20 6:29 pm, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 04:57:28PM -0400, Gary Dale wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > Just to be clear, the folder I had to change permissions on is the
> > > <folder containing all the web sites. This is many levels above the
> > > document root,
> > To be able to access a file given its path, you need to have read
> > access to each directory [1] along that path. There isn't another
> > way, and this is a Good Thing [TM]
> 
> I don't know if this is a silly question or not, but can you access a file
> not given its path?
> 
> 
> I have the same problem as the OP sometimes and wonder what rules there are
> for allowing access to directories further along the path.

A file can only have one set of ownership and permissions
(modulo extended attributes), but it can appear in multiple
paths.

There are two ways of doing this: a hard link, and a symbolic
link. Both are created with ln.

A hard link is a new actual name for the same file. It must
exist on the same underlying filesystem. Moving the original
file does not invalidate a hard link. Deleting the original
filename does not invalidate a hard link; the file itself
continues to exist as long as at least one hard link exists
somewhere. If you can create a hard link to a file, you can get
to it from the new link's path.

A symbolic link points to the original file's path location.
It's an alias to the location and name, not to the underlying
file. If you delete the file, the symlink becomes invalid; if
you move the file, the symlink is invalid. If you delete the
file and create a new one in the same path with the same name,
the symlink is valid again for the new file.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web