Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only Firefox's JS handling didn't melt my laptop.
Then turn it off.
I actually like to use websites that were made in the last decade, so instead of doing that I just use Chrome.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
771–780 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#772I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mobile site when the URl bar just shows "facebook.com").
It's not about hiding www. or m. subdomains. It's about hiding amp. subdomain, and google is really invested into turning web into collection of amp pages on their own servers.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#773Considering 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 think this is exactly right. All the letters of the name are important and cannot be left off. If people want to equate www.domain to domain they can put a 301 redirect on the www address but the browser has no business making assumptions about what the owner of the name space thinks are equivalent.
Once upon a time, back in the middle 1990s when it was a major WWW browser, Netscape Navigator assumed that it could wrap domain names in URLs within "www." and ".com".
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#774This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
Upvoted from Firefox. Only reason I use Chrome nowadays is when apps launch it directly (whereupon I strongly consider uninstalling them) or when work requires it (... which is utterly ridiculous, and very likely why our web rendering performance and consistency is utter trash).
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#775Earlier quoted context omitted.
i use Firefox @ work and @home for serious stuff. The only reason i don't use Firefox 100% is due to the Android app which is a lag fest. Mozilla needs to put more resources on Android.
Have you tried Firefox Focus?
Focus is so crippled, for no conceivable benefit (as a user), that I find it unusable. A nice concept, but it can't even switch tabs without causing a full page reload, which is like reverting back to the pre-tabbed-browsing stone-age.
And, as mentioned, it's not even Firefox. It's just a cache-less webkit wrapper.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#776This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
I use Firefox as my "at home" / private browser. However for work i unfortunately feel forced to continue using chrome. First I just really prefer the chrome devtools and i just can't seem top find an equivalent replacement for the "manage people"/multi user built ion function that chrome offers. I really wish Firefox had something similar...
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#777[deleted]
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#778Most comments assume that this is for solving user confusion, or security, or building a better URL scheme, et al. It's not, that is all smokescreen. As ivs wrote[1] 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. And for that reason, it won't be reversed until people call them for what they are actually…
That makes sense. And not just AMP but they want to train users to NOT pay attention to domain/subdomains, leading to more room for other exploits.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#779This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
I use Firefox as my "at home" / private browser. However for work i unfortunately feel forced to continue using chrome. First I just really prefer the chrome devtools and i just can't seem top find an equivalent replacement for the "manage people"/multi user built ion function that chrome offers. I really wish Firefox had something similar...
firefox has both profiles (for actual different users) and containers for isolating stuff (i.e. a sub-profile) for a single user.
The containers have a great UI/UX. I'm looking at the profile stuff now (after having not in years) and it seems counterintuitive and clunky
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
Anyway, "forced" is a strong word when you simply mean "prefer". The firefox dev tools are in the same league as the chrome ones, imo.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#780Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I mistook "that is rendered from the domain" for "rendered from a resource from the domain". However, teach users to read domain names! If users do not grasp the general concept, e.g., if the supposed identity is just "example" (possibly with some decoration considered insignificant) and not "example.com", how are they supposed to survive? Domains have been around for more than a quarter of a century, the Inte…
Yes, it would be nice if every child would learn these basics in school.
Which would be called computer literacy. I find it both awesome and terrifying that people can successfully do jobs that require working on a computer and still be computer illiterates. Awesome in a sense that it illustrates how good computer interfaces actually are and terrifying in a sense that in any profession with heavy machinery a person with a solution "adjust switches and dials until something happens" would be told to immediately vacate the place for safety reasons.