391–400 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.
This doesn't appear to be the case? [1]: https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63...
Now you can go to menu -> Customize and drag it where you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly subverting the domain name system. I can't see the value or gain in security by this. (If you want to put focus on the domain, then display the host-part with less contrast, i.e. grey, but don't hide any potentially vital information. Otherwise, put out a RFC, defining "www" as a substitute for "*", or a zero-value atom, in order to guarantee consistent behavior.) Edit: There are also legal concerns…
The reason why Google is doing this is because they are slowly trying to do away with URLs, as direct traffic is probably their greatest untapped segment. Google is trying to get users to go through their doorway pages, which is exactly the kind of thing for which they penalize publishers. Pay attention to when you enter direct addresses, let's say from a device/media subscription authorization page. The autosuggesti…
What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that?
Time for a modicum of historical perspective.
If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part of a long-running industry trend -- Safari does this too -- to improve the usability of the Internet and technology in general.
At EVERY STEP in that journey there has whining and griping from the more technically advanced folks (like all of us on this forum). They zero in on the negatives, the tradeoffs that come with simplification. They don't see the positives because they're technically advanced enough and don't benefit from simplification (or so they think).
Then after the griping whines (sic) down and they realize the world didn't end and the downsides really weren't that bad and we move forward towards a better, simpler, more usable web.
Like, who actually runs separate HTTP servers on example.com and www.example.com anyway? Everyone is hyperventilating over contrived "the principle of it all" examples. Bottom line, Apple & Google are putting usability above technical pedantry. That's the right priority for mass market technology products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
m. is where you find a lightweight, no-bullshit version of a site that doesn't load excessive images or Flash or JS before required. I want to know I'm on a faster version of a website. (Seriously, mbasic.facebook.com allows chat, whereas m.facebook.com reminds you to install the Facebook app.) You're the second person recently to lament mobile sites on HN. I think they're great. Responsive isn't there yet.
Some of them are great. Some of them do incomprehensible shit like loading text in chunks while scrolling, making it impossible to scroll to the end of an article without waiting 5-10 seconds for it to appear. (This might be a result of my using a content blocker to block mobile ads, but the fact that it’s even possible infuriates me as a user. I mean, it’s text! Just show me the text!) I agree with you 100% that res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly subverting the domain name system. I can't see the value or gain in security by this. (If you want to put focus on the domain, then display the host-part with less contrast, i.e. grey, but don't hide any potentially vital information. Otherwise, put out a RFC, defining "www" as a substitute for "*", or a zero-value atom, in order to guarantee consistent behavior.) Edit: There are also legal concerns…
A proposal for better security with domain names: The domain name system has been around for decades and it's a clever and proven system. It can – and should be – taught in school and, arguably, knowledge of it is, while not difficult to obtain, essential in our times. Additional ambiguity in this is probably not what we want. Arguably, the most sincere problems arise from mixed alphabets with Unicode domains and loo…
this is essentially what is already implemented in most browsers. You can't mix characters from different scripts in a domain name, except for special cases (e.g. japanese and latin are frequently used together and have little potential for confusion)
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
Like, big companies run separate servers on the two domains.
That's besides the fact where if you have www.example.www.example.com, it rewrites to example.example.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the problem. Better to just switch to Firefox now and be done with it. Hopefully it'll send a message.
Until Firefox leadership decide to make the same change "because that's what Chrome does". Sadly, over the history of Firefox (and before that, Mozilla/Seamonkey) the leadership there has always been WAY too obsessed with following IE and/or Chrome rather than just building the best browser and taking some chances. Seriously, trawl through Bugzilla sometime and look how many bugs are closed with the the justification…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it doesnt matter, why even remove it?
Because it's added visual noise that 99% of end users don't care about and don't need to care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing jwr's point. He's arguing that this is harmful for users, especially the ones who don't know what the words mean. If I were solving this, I'd instead push to eliminate "www" altogether, not sweep it under the rug. It was useful circa 1996, when users might plausibly be using something other than the WWW with a browser. But it has become entirely vestigial.
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.
Most sites in English, and even that is doubtful.
There's a full world out there of people and businesses using ccTLD like .fr, .nl, .co.uk, .hr, .rs, .es, .jp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A proposal for better security with domain names: The domain name system has been around for decades and it's a clever and proven system. It can – and should be – taught in school and, arguably, knowledge of it is, while not difficult to obtain, essential in our times. Additional ambiguity in this is probably not what we want. Arguably, the most sincere problems arise from mixed alphabets with Unicode domains and loo…
>enforcing a domain name (hostname and domain) to be in a single codepage this is essentially what is already implemented in most browsers. You can't mix characters from different scripts in a domain name, except for special cases (e.g. japanese and latin are frequently used together and have little potential for confusion)