Re: chrome web browser worthless
On Wed 02 Aug 2023 at 14:48:30 (-0400), gene heskett wrote:
> On 8/2/23 13:21, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:07:13PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> > > On 8/2/23 07:14, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 08:43:32AM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> > > > > * "localhost:80" - This is ambiguous
> > > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if we had an exact recipe for how to reproduce the
> > > > problem. Failing that, it'll be up to Gene to debug the situation on
> > > > his end. I'm still leaning toward an edited /etc/hosts file.
> > > >
> > >
> > > At this point Greg, I'll plead guilty to a hand edited /etc/hosts file.
> > > So here it is, tell me whats wrong:
> > >
> > > gene@bpi52:~$ cat /etc/hosts
> > > 127.0.0.1 localhost
> > >
> > > There is more of course but the rest of it is private local network
> > > (192.168.xxx.yyy) addresses of no concern here.
> >
> > Well, that looks reasonable. You're missing the IPv6 entry, but that
> > probably doesn't matter. So, assuming there are no other occurrences
> > of the word "localhost", whatever is causing the problem probably
> > lies elsewhere.
> >
> > Did you attempt any other diagnostics? Typing the full URL including
> > the http:// part, or launching Chrome with a new profile? Are you able
> > to reproduce the problem consistently, and if so, how? What are the
> > exact symptoms you see?
> >
> > Another thing to try, which I forgot to mention last time, would be using
> > the IP address directly: http://127.0.0.1/ That bypasses any hostname
> > lookup issues that may exist. It's pretty unlikely that a web service
> > running on localhost would care whether you addressed it by name or by IP
> > address (virtual hosts on loopback are not commonplace AFAIK).
> >
> Its idle atm, so I'll give that a shot, brb. A click on the empty
> address line gets me a menu from google. this pops up with the first
> character typed, but if I continue with //127.0.0.1:80, I see a ;
> replacing the : and the 80 disappears but it does work, and I am
> looking at the klipper web page, used to run the printer. And
> everything seems to work.
That doesn't look like hijacking to me, but just the normal practice
of turning the port number into the appropriate protocol and sticking
it on the front of the address. (As already mentioned, some browsers
might hide the protocol, rather like Windows does with filename
extensions.)
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: