| Time |
Nickname |
Message |
|
01:58
🔗
|
ivan` |
omf_: I hope you have time to look at the drive soon-ish |
|
01:58
🔗
|
ivan` |
wouldn't want to keep the lazy gamer nonarchivists waiting for their ut-files |
|
02:05
🔗
|
dashcloud |
Baljem: at least IE lets you temporarily trust a certificate- I can never seem to get Firefox to trust a certificate just this time- I always have to make mark it trusted |
|
02:10
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: the problem is that it doesn't tell you that it's a DNS error. |
|
02:13
🔗
|
DFJustin |
yeah but anyone who knows enough to benefit from that information would know that anyway |
|
02:14
🔗
|
joepie91 |
... no, not really |
|
02:14
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's the whole problem |
|
02:14
🔗
|
joepie91 |
if my shit stops working suddenly |
|
02:14
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's quite helpful if the browser actually tells me what's wrong |
|
02:15
🔗
|
joepie91 |
so I don't have to fuck around with a bazillion commandline tools to figure out something *that Chrome already knows but doesn't tell me* |
|
02:15
🔗
|
DFJustin |
is there a human being on the planet who can use command line tools to troubleshoot who does not know that "can't find foo.com" is a dns resolution error |
|
02:16
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: where in this error message does it make any mention of "DNS"? |
|
02:17
🔗
|
DFJustin |
it doesn't but what else could it be |
|
02:17
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: if it doesn't, how do you expect _anyone_ to know with any _certainty_ that it _is_ indeed a DNS error and not some fancy generic error message that Chrome developers decided to implement as a catch-all for assorted other problems? |
|
02:18
🔗
|
DFJustin |
because "can't find foo.com" is standard language used for dns errors since the dawn of time |
|
02:18
🔗
|
joepie91 |
this is like saying "who needs error messages in a compiler, it should just say 'there was a syntax error' without furher info and you can figure out the line number yourself, after all you know the language you're writing in right?" |
|
02:18
🔗
|
DFJustin |
and if you weren't sure, 5 seconds with ping would sort it out |
|
02:18
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: what part of "there is no certainty that no other meaning has been assigned to it by browser developers" is unclear to you |
|
02:18
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I am genuinely having a hard time understanding how this is not obvious to you |
|
02:19
🔗
|
DFJustin |
you can't be certain, but there is common language - I would expect to see "can't find" for dns and "isn't responding" for exists but does not respond etc |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
EXCEPT YOU CANNOT BE SURE |
|
02:19
🔗
|
DFJustin |
now if they've in fact used the same catchall for everything then fine |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
this is the crucial issue |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
you cannot be sure that that is what it means |
|
02:19
🔗
|
DFJustin |
even if it did say what was wrong you can't be sure it's not lying to you |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it does not give any explicit indication that that is the meaning |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
there is absolutely no way to know whether the meaning of that message may have changed |
|
02:19
🔗
|
DFJustin |
so I'm not sure that's a useful criterion |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
this means that they may as well not have told you anything |
|
02:19
🔗
|
joepie91 |
because you have to figure out shit for yourself anyway |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
so you can confirm that indeed the meaning of it has not changed |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
what part of this is unclear |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I don't care that "that is how it has always been worded" |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I care that it actively refuses to give you any more information |
|
02:20
🔗
|
DFJustin |
well the thing is with dns specifically I'm having a hard time even thinking of a program that uses the word "dns" in the error |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
thereby adding more workload for ME |
|
02:20
🔗
|
joepie91 |
to figure out wtf is wrong |
|
02:20
🔗
|
DFJustin |
firefox doesn't, unix command line tools usually don't |
|
02:21
🔗
|
joepie91 |
eh, how about every former chrome version? |
|
02:21
🔗
|
joepie91 |
where there was either a directly visible error or a "more info" button |
|
02:21
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that told you it could not be resolved? |
|
02:21
🔗
|
joepie91 |
curl: (6) Could not resolve host: randomdomainthatdoesntexist.com; Name or service not known |
|
02:21
🔗
|
joepie91 |
sven@linux-rfa7:~> curl randomdomainthatdoesntexist.com |
|
02:21
🔗
|
DFJustin |
sure it's dumb to take the more info button out |
|
02:22
🔗
|
DFJustin |
but it's literally five seconds of extra work to troubleshoot so it's hard for me to muster more than a "meh" |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: it isn't "five seconds of extrat work" |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
extra * |
|
02:22
🔗
|
DFJustin |
open terminal, ping host |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's "however much extra work that is necessary to pinpoint the problem" |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
... |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
seriously |
|
02:22
🔗
|
DFJustin |
I don't see "dns" in that curl message |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I've tried to explain this several times now |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
.. |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
dude |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
please |
|
02:22
🔗
|
joepie91 |
> could not resolve host |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
there is no possible meaning for "could not resolve host" beyond "DNS issue" |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it is almost literally a synonym |
|
02:23
🔗
|
DFJustin |
yes |
|
02:23
🔗
|
DFJustin |
and so is "can't find" |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
...no, it isn't |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
jesus christ |
|
02:23
🔗
|
DFJustin |
to everyone except you |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I get the idea that you don't WANT to understand this |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
"can't find" is an extremely generic term |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
can't find what? the domain? the server behind it? the page? |
|
02:23
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it doesn't tell you what the error relates to |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
"could not resolve host" does |
|
02:24
🔗
|
DFJustin |
if the page can't be found the server serves you a 404 page |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
asdfasdf |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
okay |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
please |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
be quiet |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
for a moment |
|
02:24
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and hear me out |
|
02:25
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I am a web developer. I use browsers not just to visit websites, but as development tools. When something goes wrong, I need to know why it goes wrong, as quickly as possible. Even one or two extra steps, over the long term, will greatly harm my productivity. |
|
02:25
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I am not a browser developer. I am not involved in the decisionmaking process of the Chrome development. I cannot know what has changed in how they deal with error pages until I find out in practice. |
|
02:25
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I have absolutely no way of predicting whether any kind of error will be handled in the same manner in the future as it is now. |
|
02:26
🔗
|
DFJustin |
that's true whether or not they visibly change the message though |
|
02:26
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I told you to hear me out |
|
02:26
🔗
|
joepie91 |
you are not letting me finish |
|
02:26
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I have no way of telling whether a 404 error is STILL displayed as a page served by the HTTPd, or whether it has been replaced with a generic browser-supplied error page, as SEVERAL browsers have been known to do in the past and even know. |
|
02:26
🔗
|
joepie91 |
now * |
|
02:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
An error message is supposed to be informative exactly BECAUSE a browser is a black box to me that I rely on for my development./ |
|
02:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
When an error page changes, I have no way of telling whether the same error page is now used for everything or just for DNS. |
|
02:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
The only way I can find out is by encountering every single other possible error, and seeing how the browser handles it -right now-. |
|
02:27
🔗
|
ivan` |
does latest Chrome not have a More button? |
|
02:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
So that I can exclude any possibility of the same error page being used for all of those errors. |
|
02:27
🔗
|
joepie91 |
ivan`: it does not. |
|
02:28
🔗
|
joepie91 |
at least not for DNS errors. |
|
02:28
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: To continue, "can't find" is extremely generic and it is unclear what it refers to. |
|
02:28
🔗
|
joepie91 |
As a developer, that is frankly a completely fucking pointless error message, akin to a compiler telling me "there's a syntax error in your code" without giving me a line number. |
|
02:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
Saying that "it takes a few seconds to find out" is, as I pointed out before, similar to saying "yeah well, you know the language, you can figure out where the syntax error error is for yourself." |
|
02:29
🔗
|
ivan` |
Firefox experiences significantly less UI breakage than Chrome |
|
02:29
🔗
|
DFJustin |
well in my experience it refers to dns errors 100% of the time. if they were using it for something else then I would be pissed same as you, but that's still a hypothetical |
|
02:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
While that is technically indeed possible, it's A. time-consuming B. very frustrating and C. completely fucking unnecessary because the browser/compiler already KNOWS the issue. |
|
02:29
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: I don't think you actually WANT to understand my problem |
|
02:30
🔗
|
DFJustin |
I understand it I just don't see it as that big a deal unless they actually do the evil hypotheticals you've provided |
|
02:30
🔗
|
joepie91 |
If, even after pointing out you're not letting me finish, you just interrupt my explanation AGAIN wih your personal judgment before you even UNDERSTAND my problem, I don't expect you to take me seriously. |
|
02:30
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: Which means you still don't understand it. |
|
02:30
🔗
|
DFJustin |
how much more do you have to say |
|
02:30
🔗
|
joepie91 |
But you're so convinced that you do, that you refuse to read half of what I say. |
|
02:30
🔗
|
joepie91 |
If I am explicitly pointing out that your understanding of what I say is incorrect, what makes you think it's correct? |
|
02:31
🔗
|
ivan` |
joepie91: Settings -> uncheck Use a web service to help resolve navigation errors |
|
02:31
🔗
|
ivan` |
er let me actually check that first ;) |
|
02:31
🔗
|
joepie91 |
ivan`: thanks, that seems to work. |
|
02:31
🔗
|
joepie91 |
but wtf, why is that necessary. |
|
02:32
🔗
|
yipdw |
I think joepie91's worry is that Chrome's trending towards genericizing HTTP 404 and DNS resolution failure in the same thing, which aren't the same thing at all |
|
02:32
🔗
|
yipdw |
at some level |
|
02:32
🔗
|
DFJustin |
sure |
|
02:32
🔗
|
yipdw |
and that this'll spread to other error conditions |
|
02:32
🔗
|
ivan` |
joepie91: you were leaking your navigation data for Google for 5 years ;) |
|
02:33
🔗
|
DFJustin |
well the argument seems to be more that now he has to reverse engineer every error message to be 100% sure they haven't already done that without telling anyone |
|
02:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
ivan`: that's a different setting actually |
|
02:33
🔗
|
ivan` |
well, that web service is run by Google and Chrome hits it when you get some < 512 byte error page |
|
02:33
🔗
|
DFJustin |
which, fine, is a pain in the ass, although it strikes me as overly paranoid |
|
02:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin; not just that; even if it isn't the case now, I have no guarantee that that won't happen in the future. |
|
02:33
🔗
|
joepie91 |
it's not overly paranoid when your productivity relies on it. |
|
02:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
ivan`: I thought you were refering to address bar data |
|
02:34
🔗
|
joepie91 |
in which case the setting is "Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar" |
|
02:34
🔗
|
yipdw |
I think the Chrome argument is probably "well why aren't you running with the Web Inspector" |
|
02:34
🔗
|
yipdw |
in which case you get all information |
|
02:34
🔗
|
yipdw |
it is kind of pain in the ass to have on-screen all the time, though |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
yipdw: it also significantly slows down your page loads |
|
02:35
🔗
|
DFJustin |
and as for the "why would they do this", obviously because most of the people who use browsers are not web developers |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
and the situation I'm sketching is where for example I go to one of my own sites and it doesn't work |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
unexpectedly |
|
02:35
🔗
|
DFJustin |
and this way if they type something dumb there's a friendly google box to direct them where they want to go, although really it should be a both and thing with technical details |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
DFJustin: yet that's still not a valid reason to do it |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
that's the whole point of the 'More...' button |
|
02:35
🔗
|
joepie91 |
I'm fine with not displaying it by defaultt |
|
02:36
🔗
|
joepie91 |
as long as it isn't more than one click away |
|
02:36
🔗
|
ivan` |
the only thing more futile than complaining on the Chrome bug tracker is complaining here |
|
02:37
🔗
|
DFJustin |
I guess part what's colouring my thought process here is that firefox has said "can't find xxx" for years |
|
02:37
🔗
|
ivan` |
I'm guessing Chrome needs to make Google even more money so they're probably happy with this |
|
02:38
🔗
|
yipdw |
who needs DNS when you have Google |
|
02:56
🔗
|
xmc |
who needs google when you have dns |
|
07:59
🔗
|
SmileyG |
errrr |
|
07:59
🔗
|
SmileyG |
has someone got the documentry link for the IA copy plz? |
|
07:59
🔗
|
SmileyG |
my sewarching is fail. |
|
08:36
🔗
|
ersi |
SmileyG: https://archive.org/details/DEFCON20Documentary |
|
08:44
🔗
|
SmileyG |
ty |
|
15:20
🔗
|
godane1 |
looks like my dumps of katproxy.com/community/ are in wayback now |
|
15:33
🔗
|
godane1 |
so i'm looking at the katproxy stuff and there was some that needed login |
|
15:33
🔗
|
godane1 |
turns out i don't have permission to view them ever logged in |
|
15:34
🔗
|
godane1 |
those threads by my guess are trashed anyways |
|
18:24
🔗
|
godane |
so i'm getting this: Y2K Family Survival Guide - With Host Leonard Nimoy |