Goodbye Chrome.
I dumped Microsoft when they tried to shove Windows 10 down my throat. I use them only when I have to now.
It's now Firefox for me.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
831–840 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#832Considering 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…
Oh come on. "www." was used as a way of delineating what was a web address. Hence the fashion of putting that there so people knew you had to do it in the browser. Before then people used to also put the " http://" on there, and the combination of the two on vehicles/signs was ridiculous. We're now in a web world. People know what a URL is. "domain.com" isn't ambiguous, it's obvious to man, beast or child that you ty…
What makes you think that http requests are the only thing domains are used for? Mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Active Directory requires that the A record for the bare domain be pointed to the PDC.
If you're serving email from example.com, for reputation reasons you should have the bare domain's A record pointed at your primary MX.
I understand that here on HN we're focused around web-based companies, but for every other corporation, there is a plethora of other services served out of a domain -- of which web/www traffic is maybe 10%, if not less. Everything from email to voip to directory services to vpns to crazy internal apps all rely on the corp's domain/domains, and you definitely should not be pointing your bare domain at your web server (which, chances are, is some contractor-built page living on GoDaddy completely outside your own infrastructure).
In a typical company, you'd have some server serving example.com doing some or all of the above. It would then be running a light http server which accepts requests on 80/443 and permanent-redirects them to www.example.com.
This is why www matters.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#833Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is the usability improvement from hiding part of the domain name? Maybe we should be hiding ".com" because that's trivial too? Better yet, why show "google" at all if from the page it's clear you're on Google? Might as well just fullscreen the content pane and be done with it.
What is the usability improvement of www?
That example.com and www.example.com can go to different places? Why would you want to force anyone to run web traffic on their bare domain?
mail goes to mail.example.com
voip goes to voip.example.com
vpn goes to vpn.example.com
Why should www be any different?
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#834Between this and AMP it looks like google's abusing their market dominance to seize control over the open internet.
We were able to somewhat break up microsoft's attempt at something similar in the 90s through anti-trust legislation, perhaps it's time to look at google?
On a side note, it seems like the openness of the internet has come under attack more and more often in the past few years, from a combination of corporate and government entities. It's absolutely essential that we keep the internet open, transparent, and free.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#835Where's the list for which subdomains Google considers "trivial"?
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#836Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah... no. That's just baseless FUD. They _are_ indeed planning to get rid of AMP cache URLs, but they'll be doing it through open W3C standards anyone can use, not through special-casing their own domains: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/a-first-look-at-usi...
No, this Chrome update is about hiding the "amp." subdomain from the original URL. What Google wants to achieve, is to make it impossible for the average user to tell when the entire website is being served from Google Cache.
Google cache links aren't served from `amp.yoursite.com`, they're served from `cdn.ampproject.org`.
If you're visiting `amp.yoursite.com`, then the site _isn't_ being served from the Google cache.
Also "this Chrome update is about hiding the "amp." subdomain on the original site from the viewer" is patently false since this update _doesn't_ hide `amp.`; only `m.` and `www.`.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#837Google doesn't want you to use URLSs.
It must be this. They haven't given a single positive reason, except "users need not concern them with this information", which is so vague it's not even a reason.
Google is still (partly) a search engine, and people interacting with the address bar is pretty much the opposite of using a search engine. So Google wants to discourage that. They will never teach users how URLs work, how to read them and definitely not how to construct them, because it makes people less dependent on their search engine.
Think about it. Even the security part. Google wants to be the arbiter of what is secure and what is trustworthy. Anything that lets users figure this out for themselves, or that can be mediated without Google coming in between, takes away from this power.
They don't show http/https any more, just a coloured lock icon. The meaning of that lock icon is for Google to decide, unlike the meaning of http/https.
Now they take away information from the address bar, claiming it is irrelevant and none of our concern. They just want you to click on the links in their search engine, or some app or assistant thing.
One thing it is NOT about though, is distraction. If anyone knows that users can tune out irrelevant information perfectly fine, it's Google. They are an advertising network, after all.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#838Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also where you receive a lightweight, fast, to the point version. Admittedly, it's not just "m", but If I _must_ use Facebook the only bearable version is mbasic.facebook.com
It’s certainly not true in the case of Reddit. Their mobile site is horrible by any measure, way slower than the old desktop site.
But they want you to use the app anyway, so they don't put effort into the web version.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#839Earlier quoted context omitted.
when did you have to know how spark plugs work to drive a car? And isn’t this why car mechanics exist? On the other hand you had to learn at some point what and RPM gauge is... And we still have it in cars even though you could say you don’t really need it.
My car does not have a RPM gauge, instead it has two arrows that suggest when to gear up or down (it is manual) One could say the interface was dumbed down to the minimum.
my brand new one has a lot of gauges... so i’d say my point is still valid. And i find them extremely useful, cos you can make better use of fuel if you know what they mean.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#840Earlier quoted context omitted.
I switched to firefox a year ago. Its a little slower, but im a lot happier. Ive been trying to degoogle as much as reasonable. I moved to fastmail as well. Still using an android, but would switch if a reasonable alternative that wasnt iphone came up. Im not paranoid or a privacy nut, just think google is too involved in my life.
Same here. Have you found any viable alternative to the Google Calendar? I'm at the point where I'm thinking about hosting a calendar project from GitHub myself.
If you own a Samsung phone, the calendar app is good. I wonder if you can install those Samsung apps (which for some are just forks of unmaintained AOSP apps) on a regular Android if you somehow get the apk.