231–240 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com" Can you link to a site where these two are different?
From one of the comments there: http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while foo.com and www.foo.com are controlled by the same people Sometimes. Far from always. In some environments, `www` may be under an entirely different administrative domain, with lesser authority than the top level domain which is delegating web services to the `www` group by way of creating a dns record and/or adding an http(s) redirect to the parent domain. Having some string values arbitrarily considered tri…
Isn't that simply due to internal politics? Whoever owns foo.com might delegate www.foo.com to someone else, but they ultimately control both.
I am in favor of the change. I do not think hiding technical information from non-technical users is a bad thing. Making it impossible for technical users to work it out is the bad thing. If technical users want their own browser mode, where all these things are readily available, then I'd be all for that. Clicking on the browser location bar should reveal the full URL. But the noise of the protocol, the www. prefix,…
Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…
I want to know that I'm receiving a degraded version of a website and that maybe dropping the m. will restore it.
I am in favor of the change. I do not think hiding technical information from non-technical users is a bad thing. Making it impossible for technical users to work it out is the bad thing. If technical users want their own browser mode, where all these things are readily available, then I'd be all for that. Clicking on the browser location bar should reveal the full URL. But the noise of the protocol, the www. prefix,…
Edit: well I was right, this breaks in the new Chrome, http://m.tumblr.com/ , tumblr usernames on the 'trivial' list are broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.
They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CanadaEarlier quoted context omitted.
From one of the comments there: http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.
Those go to the same place for me
http://www.pool.ntp.org/ redirects me to https://www.ntppool.org/en/.
http://pool.ntp.org/ takes me to an "It works!" default Apache 2 page for an Ubuntu installation. As the comment in the issue describes, http://pool.ntp.org/ takes you to a random ntp server.
If you want another example, try google.com using Google's own DNS:
PS U:\> nslookup - 8.8.8.8
Default Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8
> google.com
Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Addresses: 2607:f8b0:4009:810::200e
172.217.8.206
> www.google.com
Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address: 8.8.8.8
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: forcesafesearch.google.com
Addresses: 216.239.38.120
216.239.38.120
Aliases: www.google.com
I stumbled upon this bug too, and here's why this is not okay to me: For a couple of hours, I thought Citibank Singapore's website was down. If one tries accessing citibank.com.sg, there's no redirect to the www. subdomain. (That's still the case, if anyone wants to try.) If Chrome didn't hide the www., I would have been able to tell from Chrome's search/address bar that the various banking services that I've been ac…
It's not a shoddy implementation on Citibank's part. Google are just fucking the web over so we all have to fit their structure. This is standard incumbent behaviour, they are drawing up the moat bridge, inch by inch.
Come on, you know where this is going: They are going to hide amp subdomain, so you don't know if you're looking at AMP or the actual destination. And then suddenly the whole world funnels through AMP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not drop .com then as well? Most sites are on .com domains after all. It is exactly the same issue. A domain is a domain. Google is arbitrarily dictating your CNAME from the user's perspective. What if you don't serve your site off of mysite.com is google going to automatically try again at www.mysite.com? What if you have distinct content at both domains? This decision is stupid.
Yes, why not drop URL's altogether then? Why display such "technical" things for the plebes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The padlock was already meaningless.
It started being meaningless thanks to Let's Encrypt. Before it meant you had to show your ID and banking info to a "reputable" corporation for them to make a cert for you. Yes I know I know, not always the case, but... LE means that the mantra "if it's https then it's a secure and reputable website" is now outdated.