(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

jamesbond wrote:The problematic caching usually happens by the browser - this is usually fixed by pressing Ctrl-F5 just like any other.

That's something that Atle will need to tell his users. Otherwise, he can expect complaints like "Myserver.com broke my browser!".

The advantage of users accessing myserver.com strictly by IP address is that those caching issues can be avoided.

rcrsn51 wrote:

jamesbond wrote:The problematic caching usually happens by the browser - this is usually fixed by pressing Ctrl-F5 just like any other.

That's something that Atle will need to tell his users. Otherwise, he can expect complaints like "Myserver.com broke my browser!".

Agreed. Browser caching is full of magic because of conflicting standards and the need to keep backward compatibility with Netscape 1.0. They are *not* supposed to do this in the first place, but in certain conditions they do.

The advantage of users accessing myserver.com strictly by IP address is that those caching issues can be avoided.

Agreed.

Thanks for the neat dialog here.

The luxury of the client typing whatever, (google.com or puppylinux.org) automatically redirect the client to the webserver address. That is like SPOT ON...

That leaves no room for any need of instructions.

Its like when i take the train, there is a wifi network service present and when i become client there, no matter what i write in the url field of my webbrowser i will be redirected to their captive portal that gives you the usual user terms and log on.

Now we do not need the portal, but just the captive part:-)

I did some efforts to try to test the initial suggestion, but was not capable of getting to anywhere.


But to sum up. When people log on to a wifi, they expect a service and that must be idiot proof. IF at McDonald, near anyone understand how to use their wifi service with the captive portal that is intuitive.

The same appeal to what i "see" as it must be "grandma" friendly in order to have a wider appeal.

Obviously the dialog in technical terms is way beyond and above my level.

As for the failure of mine with the dnsmasq. i shall try this again and it might be that id did not do the www in front of myserver.com


atle

@Atle: Whatever happened with this? It looks like jamesbond gave you the exact answer you want four posts back.

I need a little more time to get this straight and get the testing and then some remasters done.

I will be back soon...

Project updated 2019-10-13.