Subj : Re: sur.ly To : Barry Martin From : Ky Moffet Date : Sat Jan 25 2025 11:25:00 BARRY MARTIN wrote: > Hi Ky! > > For those using Ubuntu/Linux > KM> ...and probably any linux. > > Probably. Indeedy! https://linuxconfig.org/hosts-file-example-on-linux https://linuxhandbook.com/etc-hosts-file/ ip6, argh. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/modify-manage-hosts-file-linux/ > > > edit: /etc/hosts > > add the line (anywhere): 127.0.0.1 sur.ly > > save and exit > KM> Ah, I need to check that. I suppose I could just replace the > KM> default with my hoary old Windows HOSTS (which goes back over 20 > KM> years now). > > KM> > > KM> hosts > KM> hosts > KM> hosts > KM> hosts.allow > KM> hosts.deny > KM> hosts.org > > KM> ...da fruit?? > > When given lemons....? Make a mess in the kitchen! > My guess is two of the 'hosts' files are from old/antique versions > updated over time and either the file's directory was moved or they're > in backup directories. If using the 8.3 convention "hosts.org" could > mean "hosts - original". Well, those are linux files, but ... allow and deny are dated 2009, which would be about when PCLinuxOS was first forked from Mandrake. I'd guess Tex forgot about them and went to a single HOSTS file instead, which would be the current model. > As for "hosts.allow" and "hosts.deny", possibly whitelist and blacklist > files, though not necessarily for the main Windows OS. I'm thinking > more for a networking type utility. Ain't Windows, but yeah, that's what they appear to be. > KM> One of the three files named hosts has quite an extensive default > KM> list of bad-site no-donut. And they're routed to 0.0.0.0 instead > KM> of 128.0.0.1 -- this works better on some OSs (apparently it's > KM> not even routed in the first place, rather than needing to be > KM> routed to oblivion), not well on others. > > Yes, and 0.0.0.0 still seems to have some usage today. This quote is > from response to me in a MythTV forum for troubleshooting why an > external device wasn't connecting: 0.0.0.0 is the "loopback" address and 127.0.0.1 is "localhost". But there's debate which should be used in the HOSTS file (regardless of OS) and in ages past on Windows, when I tried 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1, I got some weird error, so stopped using it. https://superuser.com/questions/1690091/whats-the-difference-for-a-hosts-file-when-deciding-to-use-127-0-0-1-or-0-0-0-0 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20778771/what-is-the-difference-between-0-0-0-0-127-0-0-1-and-localhost > > It should be the bind_address variable. > 0.0.0.0 and the ipv6 equivalent :: means connect through all ip > addresses. Giving a discrete address limits to that address. > > (And is 128.0.0.1 a typo?) Indubitably. Typed a random address to no particular purpose. Tho occurs to me that any nonsense address would work to send the unwanted to oblivion. > KM> That'll put 'em in a sur.ly mood!! > > I don' wanna go home! Waaaaaah! I always get a laugh from the Winhelp header: "There's no place like 127.0.0.1" > > Can test by afterwards loading your browser, type 'sur.ly' (no quotes!) > > in the address bar, and see a message it can't find the site. > KM> Press to test.... release to detonate...... > > Or why I will sometimes test on a Raspberry Pi or Virtual Machine before > installing on this computer -- The Pi's and VMs are somewhat > 'disposable'. Good thought, unless you're a Pi or a VM! Hmm. I wonder if we can run "Life" in a VM.... > .. Help! My toilet roll has no documentation! You're scaring me.... þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com (454:1/1) .