Comments on: No More “www” http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www in search of intervals Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:56:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: DGM http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-102796 DGM Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:57:44 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-102796 <p>What about sites where the web server is offsite from the email server and other services?</p> <p>From a DNS management standpoint, it's easier to keep the www as an alias, because migrating services is much, much easier.</p> What about sites where the web server is offsite from the email server and other services?

From a DNS management standpoint, it’s easier to keep the www as an alias, because migrating services is much, much easier.

]]> By: baadbitty http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-102652 baadbitty Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:37:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-102652 <p>in sweden they say V V V</p> in sweden they say V V V

]]> By: Solar Boy http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-100909 Solar Boy Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:34:37 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-100909 <p>Ask those bunch of guys at Microsoft to do the same thing Apache can. I'm sorry, thats impossible....</p> Ask those bunch of guys at Microsoft to do the same thing Apache can. I’m sorry, thats impossible….

]]> By: Daniel Miessler http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-100789 Daniel Miessler Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:13:50 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-100789 <p>That's what the hostnames are for. Again, as I say in the article, this isn't about getting rid of hostnames. It's about defaulting to the web content for the root of the domain.</p> That’s what the hostnames are for. Again, as I say in the article, this isn’t about getting rid of hostnames. It’s about defaulting to the web content for the root of the domain.

]]> By: Sal B http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-100705 Sal B Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:59:51 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-100705 <p>Man, I remember sitting and watching TV about 5-7 years ago and the lady on MTV who was promoting some website said: "H tee tee pee, dubya, dubya, dubya dot _____ dot com". i agree with you though. Put this one up there with getting rid of comic sans!</p> Man, I remember sitting and watching TV about 5-7 years ago and the lady on MTV who was promoting some website said: “H tee tee pee, dubya, dubya, dubya dot _____ dot com”. i agree with you though. Put this one up there with getting rid of comic sans!

]]> By: Andrew Wells http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-100694 Andrew Wells Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:43:48 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-100694 <p>What happens when different services are on different servers? Not all sites are small enough to host the www, db, and mail. If you have one server do a different service, you need separate domains (or prefixes).</p> What happens when different services are on different servers? Not all sites are small enough to host the www, db, and mail. If you have one server do a different service, you need separate domains (or prefixes).

]]> By: Andreas http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-100614 Andreas Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:58:19 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-100614 <p>WTF ? Just use a good webserver like apache and not an M$ wich can't rewrite. Apache can rewrite the url's. Hit the domain without www and rewite all to www or the other way if u like it more (www.domain rewrite to domain...) So u can reach the webiste with or without www..... I like the www and rewrite my urls to www.my-domain</p> WTF ? Just use a good webserver like apache and not an M$ wich can’t rewrite. Apache can rewrite the url’s. Hit the domain without www and rewite all to www or the other way if u like it more (www.domain rewrite to domain…) So u can reach the webiste with or without http://www….. I like the www and rewrite my urls to http://www.my-domain

]]> By: Freexe http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-99128 Freexe Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:20:50 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-99128 <p>It's a shame that so many sites still don't support not using www. like my bank (halifax http://halifax-online.co.uk/)</p> It’s a shame that so many sites still don’t support not using http://www. like my bank (halifax http://halifax-online.co.uk/)

]]> By: Ugly American http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-99071 Ugly American Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:03:45 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-99071 <p>Traffic for non-trivial sites is already remapped by protocol/port anyway and has been for years. When you hit sun.com on port 80 you get one bank of servers and on port 21 you get another.</p> <p>In short, prefixes are only needed if you have an idiot admin.</p> <p>Printing and typing them are a waste of resources.</p> <p>Speaking them is a waste of time.</p> Traffic for non-trivial sites is already remapped by protocol/port anyway and has been for years. When you hit sun.com on port 80 you get one bank of servers and on port 21 you get another.

In short, prefixes are only needed if you have an idiot admin.

Printing and typing them are a waste of resources.

Speaking them is a waste of time.

]]> By: Cyrious Garnetski http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98935 Cyrious Garnetski Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:03:49 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98935 <p>Lets drop the ftp too. And the home. And domain names. Isn't typing 192.168.1.1 a lot easier than typing a long domain name?</p> Lets drop the ftp too. And the home. And domain names. Isn’t typing 192.168.1.1 a lot easier than typing a long domain name?

]]> By: Brent http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98919 Brent Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:33:06 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98919 <p>The 'www' doesn't really denote which protocol is being used; that's done by the prefix, http://, ftp:// etc. So the 'www' is redundant, really, in an address such as http://www.foo.com. It starts with http, so we know it's a web page.</p> <p>Conversely, it's not unheard of to see FTP sites with www in their names: ftp://www.bar.com.</p> <p>So... I'm all for dropping the www. I think even the most inexperienced web users, were they to hear an ad or whatever stating "come by and visit us at acmewidgets.com", would know to go their browsers and enter 'acmewidgets.com', and expect to arrive at a web site.</p> The ‘www’ doesn’t really denote which protocol is being used; that’s done by the prefix, http://, ftp:// etc. So the ‘www’ is redundant, really, in an address such as http://www.foo.com. It starts with http, so we know it’s a web page.

Conversely, it’s not unheard of to see FTP sites with www in their names: ftp://www.bar.com.

So… I’m all for dropping the http://www. I think even the most inexperienced web users, were they to hear an ad or whatever stating “come by and visit us at acmewidgets.com”, would know to go their browsers and enter ‘acmewidgets.com’, and expect to arrive at a web site.

]]> By: Wirkman Netizen: Insert ideas into head; observe at safe distance. http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98905 Wirkman Netizen: Insert ideas into head; observe at safe distance. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:51:07 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98905 <p>[...] I have been sick, very sick, for several days now. In lieu of anything to write, i will simply forward on a very good idea: stop using www in prefix to Web addresses! [...]</p> [...] I have been sick, very sick, for several days now. In lieu of anything to write, i will simply forward on a very good idea: stop using www in prefix to Web addresses! [...]

]]> By: David Precious http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98898 David Precious Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:27:00 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98898 <p>This again?</p> This again?

]]> By: Michael G.R. http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98896 Michael G.R. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:16:26 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98896 <p>I think it's a good idea. In fact, from day one I've never had "WWW" in my website url: MichaelGR.com</p> I think it’s a good idea. In fact, from day one I’ve never had “WWW” in my website url: MichaelGR.com

]]> By: Tim F. http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98875 Tim F. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:09:20 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98875 <p>I've noticed a lot of reposts from you, Daniel. Are you in a blogging slump?</p> <p>Andrew,</p> <p>Internally, it's perfectly fine to have a "www" tld (for network identification), but that doesn't necessarily mean that your website needs to be identified (on the world wide web) by that tld. In fact, it could be quite confusing -- www is too generic.</p> <p>Chances are that any web server already has a meaningful hostname, and assigning it an alternate ("www") causes ambiguity.</p> <p>Or, let's say I have two (or more) web servers (each of which has a meaningful hostname). To which do I assign the "www" tld?</p> <p>I really haven't said what I'm trying to say because it's difficult to express. Why force a "www" on people when it's not necessary?</p> I’ve noticed a lot of reposts from you, Daniel. Are you in a blogging slump?

Andrew,

Internally, it’s perfectly fine to have a “www” tld (for network identification), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that your website needs to be identified (on the world wide web) by that tld. In fact, it could be quite confusing — www is too generic.

Chances are that any web server already has a meaningful hostname, and assigning it an alternate (”www”) causes ambiguity.

Or, let’s say I have two (or more) web servers (each of which has a meaningful hostname). To which do I assign the “www” tld?

I really haven’t said what I’m trying to say because it’s difficult to express. Why force a “www” on people when it’s not necessary?

]]> By: Anglictina http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98870 Anglictina Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:51:48 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98870 <p>Yes, this is 100% right.</p> Yes, this is 100% right.

]]> By: Support this story on Stirrdup http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98863 Support this story on Stirrdup Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:20:14 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98863 <p><strong>No More “www”...</strong></p> <p>This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot....</p> No More “www”…

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

]]> By: Null-Logic » Blog Archive » www is for queers. http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98860 Null-Logic » Blog Archive » www is for queers. Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:16:19 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98860 <p>[...] More about it here. [...]</p> [...] More about it here. [...]

]]> By: Brian http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98858 Brian Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:14:33 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98858 <p>It's faster to say "world wide web" or "Triple-U" There was an episode of "Home Movies" called "Everybody's Entitled to My Opinion" that played around with this concept. Me? I like to pronounce it as a long "w" sound.</p> It’s faster to say “world wide web” or “Triple-U” There was an episode of “Home Movies” called “Everybody’s Entitled to My Opinion” that played around with this concept. Me? I like to pronounce it as a long “w” sound.

]]> By: Andrew http://dmiessler.com/blog/no-more-www#comment-98849 Andrew Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:26:36 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/its-time-to-drop-the-www-2#comment-98849 <p>People in the industry, who have to refer to www all the time actually pronounce it dub-dub-dub, an example of this can be heard/seen here:</p> <p>http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=136904&pvrid=201</p> <p>You will hear the Microsoft engineers refer to every Microsoft site that they run as dub-dub-dub ... plus it sounds cooler calling it that.</p> <p>:-)</p> <p>As far as removing the www all together in addresses ... that is a really bad idea from a technically speaking perspective (I've been a networker for 30 years now). As you touch in your article www was first used as a way to separate a web server from a ftp, email or the many other types of servers out there. www is technically called a hostname or tld (third level domain, not to be confused with the tld, or top level domain (.com, .net etc)). And to have it purely point to the root, may cause confusion in managing on larger systems and the DNS system. </p> <p>Most web servers, such as Apache, will allow a rewrite from the address www.example.com to example.com, if that is what the user wants, regardless of how things are setup at the gateway. </p> <p>Just my 1 cent.</p> People in the industry, who have to refer to www all the time actually pronounce it dub-dub-dub, an example of this can be heard/seen here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=136904&pvrid=201

You will hear the Microsoft engineers refer to every Microsoft site that they run as dub-dub-dub … plus it sounds cooler calling it that.

:-)

As far as removing the www all together in addresses … that is a really bad idea from a technically speaking perspective (I’ve been a networker for 30 years now). As you touch in your article www was first used as a way to separate a web server from a ftp, email or the many other types of servers out there. www is technically called a hostname or tld (third level domain, not to be confused with the tld, or top level domain (.com, .net etc)). And to have it purely point to the root, may cause confusion in managing on larger systems and the DNS system.

Most web servers, such as Apache, will allow a rewrite from the address http://www.example.com to example.com, if that is what the user wants, regardless of how things are setup at the gateway.

Just my 1 cent.

]]>