How does sending users from http://www.example.com to example.com make things simpler?

Surely redirecting example.com to http://www.example.com would just as simple and better for the end user.

This is how the beginning of most calls will go:

“Blah blah hello thank you for calling blah blah etc., to get started let’s open Internet Explorer”

. . .

“Now go to sub.example.com”

Besides typing it into the search bar, the most common error is going to http://www.sub.example.com. I have to remind the customer at this point that I said sub.example.com, not http://www.sub.example.com. http://www.sub.example.com redirects to a page nowhere near where we are trying to go. This happens regularly.

In this most significant portion of my experience, unquestioning reliance on the validity of any web address with www in front of it causes nothing but trouble. I find myself agreeing with the no-www position: That we should preserve www subdomains for those who end up typing them, but teach the general internet user base that it is unnecessary and does not go arbitrarily at the beginning of every web address. To this end I will be redirecting http://www.jack.is to jack.is.

The www host is a way to tell strangers that if they want general information, they should look on the machine where it is CNAME’d to. CNAMEs are really handy and that’s why lots of people use them. But because it is new and exciting to leave the www. out nowadays there are enough idiots that copy the CNAME into @. Which works about 80% of the time because as I remember it putting a CNAME into @ will give different results depending on the client querying, and can so go unnoticed for a long time.

All this bullshit is screwing up DNS. If it is a webserver: label it as such, lazy bastards. You all know the internet is well over 98% complete idiots, so why propose something that is likely to confuse >5% of those 98% at one point or another, screws up DNS in the process and also creates a political discussion about it worldwide? I must now use at least a couple hundered non-www hosts to compensate for the time I took to write this comment, otherwise I don’t even win time!

Basically if you want .www to go you are an idiot and should get off the internet and step away from the computer. Step away sir!

That’s not true is it?

I have 10 sub-domain and only 1 has a SSL, I was I could only have 1 per IP address?

‘www’ used to depict an internet server, while without ‘www’ would be an intranet server.

‘www’ is defined by:
‘[i]The complete set of documents residing on all Internet servers that use the HTTP protocol, accessible to users via

a simple point-and-click system.[/i]‘

Web browsers nowadays automatically prepend ‘http://’ onto the requested URL. ‘www’ is now just a useless subdomain.

‘www’ can be for offline advertising, when someone hears ‘double-you-double-you-double-you’ they immediately know

you’re talking about a website. This is fine, as you can 301 redirect all requests for http://www.example.com to example.com.

Other than that, the only reason to keep www dot is if you have a large established site with a high pagerank. Your

backlinks may become invalid if you go from with-www to without-www, or vice versa.