4 ms·

.test also works, but I like .dev more, so I have and continue to use .dev via hosts file (edit: hearing Firefox is doing the .dev HSTS preload as well, that's

by byuu 8y ago

.test also works, but I like .dev more, so I have and continue to use .dev via hosts file (edit: hearing Firefox is doing the .dev HSTS preload as well, that's very disappointing to hear.) I do wish /etc/hosts accepted wildcards, though. It can be a touch annoying having to add a new rule every time I create a new subdomain.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
If you like .dev so much instead of .test, why not use something like subdomain.[public-domain].dev.com for all of your dev use? It seems silly to continue using .dev, especially when this will now be a public and commonly used TLD. So now, if you're modifying .dev records for a local/private network, and then you or someone on that network attempts to go to a public website that is using the .dev TLD, it might not work, or you'll get a completely unexpected result. Doesn't seem worth that hassle.
- byuu 8y ago
  I guess I just don't like multi-billion dollar companies coming in and dictating that I change my workflow for their cash grabs.
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    Who bought it is irrelevant. It could have been released to the public in a similar way to .com and the same issue would remain. The .dev TLD was never reserved for your dev use. If you had been doing it correctly and following the RFC, you wouldn’t have to change anything with your workflow. Now, if they ever release .test for public use then I’ll grab my pitchfork with you.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      Thankfully RFC 2606 ensures that that will never happen.
      - takeda 8y ago
        That's what he meant with the pitchfork.
    - Aeolun 8y ago
      The fact that it is legal doesn’t make it any less of a PITA though.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        The point is that the cause of the PITA is the refusal of people to follow RFCs.
  - oftenwrong 8y ago
    Then you should not have built your workflow on a non-reserved TLD.
    - byuu 8y ago
      Eh, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing, but thanks. https://twitter.com/byuu_san/status/1096885634923294720 https://twitter.com/byuu_san/status/1096885634923294720

by byuu 8y ago

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

If you like .dev so much instead of .test, why not use something like subdomain.[public-domain].dev.com for all of your dev use? It seems silly to continue using .dev, especially when this will now be a public and commonly used TLD. So now, if you're modifying .dev records for a local/private network, and then you or someone on that network attempts to go to a public website that is using the .dev TLD, it might not work, or you'll get a completely unexpected result. Doesn't seem worth that hassle.

byuu 8y ago
I guess I just don't like multi-billion dollar companies coming in and dictating that I change my workflow for their cash grabs.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Who bought it is irrelevant. It could have been released to the public in a similar way to .com and the same issue would remain. The .dev TLD was never reserved for your dev use. If you had been doing it correctly and following the RFC, you wouldn’t have to change anything with your workflow. Now, if they ever release .test for public use then I’ll grab my pitchfork with you.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Thankfully RFC 2606 ensures that that will never happen.
    - takeda 8y ago
      That's what he meant with the pitchfork.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    The fact that it is legal doesn’t make it any less of a PITA though.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      The point is that the cause of the PITA is the refusal of people to follow RFCs.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  Then you should not have built your workflow on a non-reserved TLD.
  - byuu 8y ago
    Eh, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing, but thanks. https://twitter.com/byuu_san/status/1096885634923294720 https://twitter.com/byuu_san/status/1096885634923294720