Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile eLarsson.net Previous Previous Next Next
dubya... - Larsson Log — LiveJournal
grain of salt not included...
Why do people feel the need to use www in URLs? www is so 1990s, like when the web was this new, cool, thing, and you put the www in there because it stood for World-Wide-Web. Who care anymore? If I'm using a web-browser, I know that I'm surfing the web, and I just don't see the need for the extra four keystrokes. Besides which, when during a campaign speech our then-future president makes comments like "If my competitor claims to have invented the Internet, then how come every internet address begins with Dubya" I'm really turned off towards using it... :-)

So, drop the freaking w's. Drew's web site is just http://drew.edu/, none of this www.drew.edu nonsense. My web site is just http://elarsson.net/, thank you. and if your site doesn't work without the w's, then get yourself a sysadmin that knows how to configure DNS, because you just lost my business. Yeah, that's harsh, but we need more people like me to successfully de-W the web.

So, stop using W! Don't make links with Ws! and refuse to patronize businesses that require W! only then will be rid ourselves of this archaic convention! :-)

Current Mood: aggravated aggravated

10 comments or Leave a comment
kingfox From: kingfox Date: July 11th, 2002 01:37 pm (UTC) (Link)

Give them a break

At least I don't hear people on trains/radio commercials/cell phones/etc. adding the hypertext transfer protocol part. Back in the old days, it was always AITCH TEE TEE PEE COLON SLASH SLASH DOUBLE YOU DOUBLE YOU DOUBLE YOU company name. They're down to WWW, give them a break. One step at a time.
windexcowboy From: windexcowboy Date: July 11th, 2002 01:48 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Give them a break

Give ME a break. So, big deal, so now they just put www.uselessproduct.com and drop the http. I might consider that progress, if they didn't put that right next to their AOL Keyword, which usually happens to just be their second-level DNS name anyway. The W is useless, let's just get rid of it now and be done with it...
kingfox From: kingfox Date: July 11th, 2002 01:53 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Give them a break

Oh, I'm not saying we should keep the WWW. I'm just saying that the dominant paradigm wasn't subverted overnight.
celaeno From: celaeno Date: July 11th, 2002 02:44 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, that's harsh, but we need more people like me to successfully de-W the web.

I love the use of de-W as a verb :)
daylami From: daylami Date: July 12th, 2002 10:20 am (UTC) (Link)
As a Disney devotee, you must be aware that "when there's trouble you call D.W.!"
runstaverun From: runstaverun Date: July 11th, 2002 09:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
f-prot.com? no! www.f-prot.com! really annoying when their website is so hard to find that half the times I've looked for it I end up googling it and end up with their european site instead.
doughnutman From: doughnutman Date: July 12th, 2002 06:38 am (UTC) (Link)

I agree down with Ws. Keep them out of the internet. They are really just plain annoying and add a greater chance of messing up a link because of where you put the period, which is unbelievably difficult to find. And dammit it is a stupid letter anyway

From: rfrancis Date: August 6th, 2002 12:34 am (UTC) (Link)

Actually, there's a perfectly good reason for this.

randomgang.com: my home machine, where mail goes, and all that good stuff.

www.randomgang.com: an entirely different machine across the country that hosts my web site for me.

In the early 90s (and yes, I ran a website then, too), we didn't put in the www because it was cool, any more than mail.domain or ftp.domain or anything of that sort was ever done for that reason. It was either to give the flexibility to POSSIBLY move the server away from the machine that named simply for the domain, or because it already WAS a different machine (and possibly a remote, even colocated one).

Sometimes it's possible and reasonable to put a web server on the domain-named machine just to do redirects (bleh), but sometimes it's not (for instance, my firewall blocks and will continue to block packets on port 80 and most other ports, too).

I am days away from making the web server at work be a different machine than the one where mail is delivered, primary logins are done, and so forth, and it will go smoothly because, well, back in the 90s I put that www in the name. (It'll change from a CNAME to one machine to a CNAME to another. Easy as pie.)

And I know how to do my DNS just fine, thanks.
windexcowboy From: windexcowboy Date: August 6th, 2002 06:09 am (UTC) (Link)
Wow.. the fact that anyone else has read my LJ is kind of funny... My meaningless rants are never to be taken seriously... :-) It usually menas I took something to the extreme intentionally to be ridiculous... It came out of a dicussion at work, which I don't even remember the origin of anymore quite frankly...

Of course, there are some sites where it isn't appropriate to make the A record for domainname.com point to a web server. Although if it's a domain for an organization that has a web site, I think it should. Simply because that's the resource most people are going to expect to find at that domain.

Having mail on a seperate box shouldn't be an issue with MX records. At Drew University. where I work, we have an A record for drew.edu that points to our web server, and an MX record that points to the email server, which is a seperate box. Originally, we only had an MX record for drew.edu and the web server was www.drew.edu. A few years back we added an A record for drew.edu that pointed to the web server, since the web site would be the thing most outsiders would be looking for at that domain.

In an ideal world, I would like web browsers to support SRV records so the discussion of what machine to point to with your domain name would be moot. Just specify what hosts provide what services, and let the client figure out who to talk to. That would seem to me to be the ideal solution. Making the web server be the machine you point to with your domain name seems to me to be an ugly solution that has become convention. SRV records are a much more elegant way of handling this, in my opinion. I find it ironic that Microsoft is actually leading the way in that department with the way they are using SRV records with Active Directory.
From: rfrancis Date: August 6th, 2002 11:34 am (UTC) (Link)
Oh, well, to explain, I was using that livejournal "people who share the most interests with you" thing and you were in my top 10 or 15. :)

Anyway, yes, I realized after I typed the whole thing that my point about mail was weak, but I still have a preference of using the domain for the primary login server (since you're a fellow dweller in academia, you know the drill about vast numbers of users logging into a machine to do...whatever it is they do; I work for a computer science department so you can imagine the mess). It's easy to remember and all that good stuff, and there's no pointer record for telnet and ssh, so...

And yeah, if there WERE pointer records for all the good services (http in particular) that would be nice. Several years ago a colleague and I submitted an RFC draft to suggest a way to standardize using TXT records to do this in a generic way, but it fell into the IETF submissions process and vanished forever. :)

At any rate, I stick to the analogy of the ftp.domain sort of name... it serves a purpose (to abstract the identity of the machine providing the service, since there's no other way to point to it, as we just agreed -- well, short of using a NAT implementation to do it and let's just not go there) and isn't necessarily just used because it's sounds all web techie like. (On the other hand, I know full well that in many, probably most, cases, it's just that, so it's not that I don't see your point.)
10 comments or Leave a comment