SnipAway
The customizable snippet manager made for developers and people who work with code.

www. is not deprecated
really

Why use www?

This page is intended for webmasters who are looking for information about whether or not to use www in their canonical web site URLs.

First, a bit of terminology. The domain name without www is sometimes referred to as a naked domain, and I’ll refer to it as such here.
Why should I use www?

You should use www because today you have a small web site, and tomorrow you want a big web site. Really big.

The technical reasons to use www primarily apply to the largest web sites which receive millions (or more) of page views per day, web sites with a large number of services across several subdomains, and virtually any web site hosted in “the cloud” by an application service provider.

Heroku, for instance, strongly recommends against using naked domains. When using a provider such as Heroku or Akamai to host your web site, the provider wants to be able to update DNS records in case it needs to redirect traffic from a failing server to a healthy server. This is set up using DNS CNAME records, and the naked domain cannot have a CNAME record. This is only an issue if your site gets large enough to require highly redundant hosting with such a service. But who doesn’t want their site to get that large? In order to not use www, you will have to run your own server farms and you will be unable to use such services to their fullest extent. (See also: Why does Heroku warn against “naked” domain names?)

Another reason has to do with cookies. One common web site optimization is to serve static content from a subdomain, such as static.example.com. If you are using www, then this is no problem; your site’s cookies won’t be sent to the static subdomain (unless you explicitly set them up to do so). If you use the naked domain, the cookies get sent to all subdomains (by recent browsers that implement RFC 6265), slowing down access to static content, and possibly causing caching to not work properly. The only way to get around this problem and keep the naked domain is to buy a second domain name just for your static content. Twitter, for instance, which does not use www, had to buy new domain names just for static content. Of course, if you explicitly share your cookies across all your subdomains, for instance to implement single sign-on across various services on subdomains of your site (Google does this), then you too would have to buy a new domain name in this circumstance anyway. (See also: What’s the point in having “www” in a URL?)

Speaking of cookies, if you decide to use the naked domain, but want to put services on subdomains and share cookies between them, you’ll quickly find out that it doesn’t work right in all cases unless you have a subdomain set the cookie — and then it doesn’t work for the naked domain. The fix for this is to use RFC 6265 (formerly RFC 2965) cookies, which can be shared between the naked domain and subdomains, but some popular web application packages still do not implement RFC 2965 properly or at all, let alone RFC 6265. (See also: Can subdomain.example.com set a cookie that can be read by example.com?)

You may not run into any of these issues today, but as your web site grows, you eventually will. Using www today and in the future makes you more prepared to handle the challenges of growing a web site beyond a single server. It can be done without using www in many circumstances, but it’s much easier with.

Should I redirect no-www to www?

Yes.

Redirection ensures that visitors who type in your URL reach you regardless of which form they use, and also ensures that search engines index your canonical URLs properly.

Graffiti on Commission

If you’re looking for a graffiti design, you’ve came to the right place! Beautiful custom illustrations in top quality, high resolution and ready for print and publishing. Full commercial copyright is included with every order!

https://app.any.run/img/big-logo.png

Comment réduire la consommation de CPU de Windows Defender ?
@Korben —
8 octobre 2019

Vous l’ignorez peut-être, mais si vous utilisez Windows, sachez que l’outil Defender présent dans Windows 10 est très respectable. Dans de nombreux tests que j’ai pu lire sur les antivirus et autres firewalls, il se classe toujours très bien.

Windows Defender sait se faire oublier et fonctionne principalement en tâche de fond. Il observe l’arrivée de nouveaux fichiers, les scanne, surveille les connexions et bien sûr lance un petit scan complet de votre système de temps en temps lorsque vous ne l’utilisez pas.

apple itunes music video online via browser

Déve­lop­peurs, vous devriez avoir honte — Règles de mots de passe

BREAKING BAD Generator Typo

Générateur de typo à la façon breaking bad !

Best image from NASA

Localhost et HTTPS

Le site web accessible depuis l’adresse « http://localhost » correspond à la boucle local : si votre ordinateur est accessible sur le port 80 dans votre navigateur, alors le site qui s’affiche correspond à votre ordinateur.

Ceci est vrai pour chaque internaute : par conséquent, obtenir un certificat SSL/TLS pour localhost est impossible (vu que le certificat sert justement à identifier un site unique).

Généralement, on utilise localhost pour avoir un serveur sur son propre ordinateur, pour pouvoir coder en local, par exemple. Aussi, il est parfois nécessaire d’avoir du https en local (surtout maintenant que les navigateurs considèrent tous les sites sans https comme dangereux).

Pour ça : mkcert.

Ce petit programme très simple va créer un certificat, non pas auto-signé (ce que les navigateurs n’aiment pas), mais signé par votre certificat personnel ! Par conséquent, les navigateurs le verront toujours comme valide !

Pour activer tout ça sous Apache, sous Linux Mint, on va :

télécharger et installer mkcert
produire un certificat
activer le https dans apache (le serveur web)
l’activer pour localhost