[01:58] omf_: I hope you have time to look at the drive soon-ish [01:58] wouldn't want to keep the lazy gamer nonarchivists waiting for their ut-files [02:05] 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] DFJustin: the problem is that it doesn't tell you that it's a DNS error. [02:13] yeah but anyone who knows enough to benefit from that information would know that anyway [02:14] ... no, not really [02:14] that's the whole problem [02:14] if my shit stops working suddenly [02:14] it's quite helpful if the browser actually tells me what's wrong [02:15] 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] 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] DFJustin: where in this error message does it make any mention of "DNS"? [02:17] it doesn't but what else could it be [02:17] 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] because "can't find foo.com" is standard language used for dns errors since the dawn of time [02:18] 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] and if you weren't sure, 5 seconds with ping would sort it out [02:18] 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] I am genuinely having a hard time understanding how this is not obvious to you [02:19] 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] EXCEPT YOU CANNOT BE SURE [02:19] now if they've in fact used the same catchall for everything then fine [02:19] this is the crucial issue [02:19] you cannot be sure that that is what it means [02:19] even if it did say what was wrong you can't be sure it's not lying to you [02:19] it does not give any explicit indication that that is the meaning [02:19] there is absolutely no way to know whether the meaning of that message may have changed [02:19] so I'm not sure that's a useful criterion [02:19] this means that they may as well not have told you anything [02:19] because you have to figure out shit for yourself anyway [02:20] so you can confirm that indeed the meaning of it has not changed [02:20] what part of this is unclear [02:20] I don't care that "that is how it has always been worded" [02:20] I care that it actively refuses to give you any more information [02:20] 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] thereby adding more workload for ME [02:20] to figure out wtf is wrong [02:20] firefox doesn't, unix command line tools usually don't [02:21] eh, how about every former chrome version? [02:21] where there was either a directly visible error or a "more info" button [02:21] that told you it could not be resolved? [02:21] curl: (6) Could not resolve host: randomdomainthatdoesntexist.com; Name or service not known [02:21] sven@linux-rfa7:~> curl randomdomainthatdoesntexist.com [02:21] sure it's dumb to take the more info button out [02:22] 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] DFJustin: it isn't "five seconds of extrat work" [02:22] extra * [02:22] open terminal, ping host [02:22] it's "however much extra work that is necessary to pinpoint the problem" [02:22] ... [02:22] seriously [02:22] I don't see "dns" in that curl message [02:22] I've tried to explain this several times now [02:22] .. [02:22] dude [02:22] please [02:22] > could not resolve host [02:23] there is no possible meaning for "could not resolve host" beyond "DNS issue" [02:23] it is almost literally a synonym [02:23] yes [02:23] and so is "can't find" [02:23] ...no, it isn't [02:23] jesus christ [02:23] to everyone except you [02:23] I get the idea that you don't WANT to understand this [02:23] "can't find" is an extremely generic term [02:23] can't find what? the domain? the server behind it? the page? [02:23] it doesn't tell you what the error relates to [02:24] "could not resolve host" does [02:24] if the page can't be found the server serves you a 404 page [02:24] asdfasdf [02:24] okay [02:24] DFJustin [02:24] please [02:24] be quiet [02:24] for a moment [02:24] and hear me out [02:25] 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] 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] 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] that's true whether or not they visibly change the message though [02:26] I told you to hear me out [02:26] you are not letting me finish [02:26] 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] now * [02:27] 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] 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] 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] does latest Chrome not have a More button? [02:27] So that I can exclude any possibility of the same error page being used for all of those errors. [02:27] ivan`: it does not. [02:28] at least not for DNS errors. [02:28] DFJustin: To continue, "can't find" is extremely generic and it is unclear what it refers to. [02:28] 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] 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] Firefox experiences significantly less UI breakage than Chrome [02:29] 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] 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] DFJustin: I don't think you actually WANT to understand my problem [02:30] 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] 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] DFJustin: Which means you still don't understand it. [02:30] how much more do you have to say [02:30] But you're so convinced that you do, that you refuse to read half of what I say. [02:30] If I am explicitly pointing out that your understanding of what I say is incorrect, what makes you think it's correct? [02:31] joepie91: Settings -> uncheck Use a web service to help resolve navigation errors [02:31] er let me actually check that first ;) [02:31] ivan`: thanks, that seems to work. [02:31] but wtf, why is that necessary. [02:32] 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] at some level [02:32] sure [02:32] and that this'll spread to other error conditions [02:32] joepie91: you were leaking your navigation data for Google for 5 years ;) [02:33] 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] ivan`: that's a different setting actually [02:33] well, that web service is run by Google and Chrome hits it when you get some < 512 byte error page [02:33] which, fine, is a pain in the ass, although it strikes me as overly paranoid [02:33] 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] it's not overly paranoid when your productivity relies on it. [02:34] ivan`: I thought you were refering to address bar data [02:34] in which case the setting is "Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs typed in the address bar" [02:34] I think the Chrome argument is probably "well why aren't you running with the Web Inspector" [02:34] in which case you get all information [02:34] it is kind of pain in the ass to have on-screen all the time, though [02:35] yipdw: it also significantly slows down your page loads [02:35] and as for the "why would they do this", obviously because most of the people who use browsers are not web developers [02:35] 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] unexpectedly [02:35] 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] DFJustin: yet that's still not a valid reason to do it [02:35] that's the whole point of the 'More...' button [02:35] I'm fine with not displaying it by defaultt [02:36] as long as it isn't more than one click away [02:36] the only thing more futile than complaining on the Chrome bug tracker is complaining here [02:37] I guess part what's colouring my thought process here is that firefox has said "can't find xxx" for years [02:37] I'm guessing Chrome needs to make Google even more money so they're probably happy with this [02:38] who needs DNS when you have Google [02:56] who needs google when you have dns [07:59] errrr [07:59] has someone got the documentry link for the IA copy plz? [07:59] my sewarching is fail. [08:36] SmileyG: https://archive.org/details/DEFCON20Documentary [08:44] ty [15:20] looks like my dumps of katproxy.com/community/ are in wayback now [15:33] so i'm looking at the katproxy stuff and there was some that needed login [15:33] turns out i don't have permission to view them ever logged in [15:34] those threads by my guess are trashed anyways [18:24] so i'm getting this: Y2K Family Survival Guide - With Host Leonard Nimoy