Talk:Comparison of web hosting control panels

Start

G'day, tweaked it a bit 1) All the tables now have the same control panels, and more of them (no need putting in control panels like cp+ which aren't under active development) 2) Its all in order. Please keep it in order. Its not difficult... 3) Yes, there are even more ?'s now.. Fill them in when you feel like :P 4) I resorted some of the tables. The first one has been split up a bit into more panels and modules takes into account package management services (that probably should be tweaked by someone). Feel free to fix things as reqd. - Auzy (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plesk actually has freebsd support, as you can see here http://www.parallels.com/en/download/plesk/patches/ (freebsd 6.1 patch)Jaapvstr (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from: http://www.cpanel.net/products/cpwhm/cpanel11/index.html
Key Features:

   * Free Installation!
   * Unlimited Domains per Server!
   * Fully Brandable!
   * Complete Server Administration Interface!
   * Fully Featured Domain Owner Interface!
   * Separate Server Administrator, Reseller, and Domain Owner Interfaces!
   * Free Multi-Language Support!
   * Free Virus Scanner! <---
   * Free Game Servers!

Jaapvstr (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

supported/required software

It would be nice to have a comparison of required and supported server software. So you can look if a CP has support for lighttpd or if it only work with apache (or something like this). --84.140.12.158 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the table. Now you can fill it with details. Hopefully nobody has something against the table or that it has nearly no content. --Txt.file (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I recently did a clean up of this article. I removed entities that are red or lack notability. I also removed the external links which appear to be a spam. If they are references consider using them in line. Do not blindly revert these changes. Discuss. --Hm2k (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why have you erased real panel names and characteristics? --80.85.180.112 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above. Because they are red links or lack notability and do not belong on Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think more complete information is more valuable than notability lacking? --Singaporian (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think it is valuable or useful doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopaedia. --Hm2k (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means that wikipedia is no more universal. it is more like "some people's decisions on what should be included". I thought that, wikipedia should include all information.. Let people decide what is valuable and what is not.. wikipedia is getting far away from initial start of its philosopy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvidinli (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eBox Addition

Could anyone add Zentyal, formerly eBox, to the chart? --Der gust (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

An editor has removed all panels with red links. I completely disagree with this decision—the fact that a Wikipedian has not had the time or ability to create articles on these panels does not make them less important than the ones already listed. Any input is welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links might be OK if the control panel software in question would meet the notability guidelines and the entry in the list is properly sourced. However a red link with no supporting reference is worthless and should be removed. So specifically HELM and Websitepanel have no place in the current article, while OpenPanel seems to have some references (albeit not the ideal level of quality).--Biker Biker (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on providing sources, but was wondering how you decided which panels met the notability guideline. Having an article does not guarantee compliance with GNG. For example, I randomly checked two less-known control panels: Baifox and DTC—and they clearly did not meet the notability guideline because there is no evidence that they were covered non-trivially in any secondary sources. I am not going to AfD these articles to prove a point, although in the future it may have to be done anyway (if no one provides secondary sources). I am also surprised that you did not try to look for sources at least for WebsitePanel, which was supported by Microsoft. HELM was also a major system, and I am sure it was much more widely used than panels like Baifox or DTC, just to give the two examples above—until it was purchased by Parallels. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DNSSEC Support

This page is really informative, however listing which panels have DNSSEC support would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.191.229 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with list

The list is suppose to have a listing of web hosting control panels, but yet it includes listing of web based interface for system administration. For example it includes Webmin, which is not a web hosting control panel at all. Trentc (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And vDeck seems to be a proprietary panel not on the list and broadly used? 86.18.215.73 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third party modules?

Seems this section could probably just go? Or be retooled to list plugins rather than PHP scripts. It seems every control panel nowadays has an integration with something like Fantastico, Installatron, Softacuous, etc. with hundreds of scripts; mentioning one or two in a table just seems silly and never apt to be accurate. BrandonSaad (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CentOS Web Panel is Proprietary

CentOS Web Panel is partially open sourced and proprietary. I personally emailed the author asking about licensing and he replied April 19, 2015: "Hello, / only part of the script code is open not all. / Regards" Doorzki (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Comparison of web hosting control panels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]