[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions)
From: |
Ivan Zaigralin |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions) |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:28:44 -0800 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.111-gnu; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; ) |
To clarify, I agree with you and Luke down below that www subdomain is nice
and useful. It's only the tacit assumption that www.whatever.com =
whatever.com that I find annoying :)
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 21:38:29 bill-auger wrote:
> 'www.' is indeed just a convention but it is not a "traditional" thing
> of the past that should go away - it's meaning is still as well defined
> and useful today as it ever was - sub-domains are very plainly a way to
> distinguish one machine or service from the various other services that
> may be offered under the base domain anme (which is often not associated
> with any server), and to allow each machine or service to have a it's
> own IP address (perhaps at different physical locations), while
> remaining semantically associated under the umbrella of the main domain name
>
> in the case of the 'www.' sub-domain in 'http://www.foo.com', that
> clearly identifies the HTTP "World Wide Web" server of foo.com - as
> distinguished from it's FTP server ftp.foo.com, it's mail server
> smtp.foo.com, it's usenet server news.foo.com, and so on - some domains
> have only a web server and so there is no confusion if there is a 'www.'
> sub-domain or not; but to assume that as the default case is to assume
> that every client that asks for 'foo.com' should always get a World Wide
> Web server, which is to ignore the plethora of other services that can
> be offered under the same domain as well the possibility that foo.com
> may have no web server at all
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), (continued)
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Jean Louis, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Matias Fonzo, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Julie Marchant, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Adonay Felipe Nogueira, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Ivan Zaigralin, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/24
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Andrew Nesbit, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Jean Louis, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Andrew Nesbit, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Luke Shumaker, 2018/01/25
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions),
Ivan Zaigralin <=
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/26
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Luke Shumaker, 2018/01/26
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/27
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Alexandre Oliva, 2018/01/28
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), bill-auger, 2018/01/30
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [gnu.org #1262331] (inactive Linux distributions), Luke Shumaker, 2018/01/25