Re: [GTALUG] Problem new virtual host
| From: ac via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | On Fri, 1 May 2020 11:33:53 -0400 (EDT) | "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: | > I'm a bit confused. But I'm probably not the only one. | > Note: I've never set up a virtual host so I could be way off-base. | > | this entire thread is confusing. it was about something unclear to | start with | and now it is simply just becoming noise. Sorry, Stephen asked for help. Something was confused or it all would have worked for him. I was trying to help reduce that confusion. Why do you consider this noise? | i mean could the op not configure apache properly? did the op not | register a domain name? is the op's /etc/hosts file being ignored due | to "browser" control of dns? Ask him. Not me. I'm trying to ask questions to clarify. | > By default, I've heard that Firefox has switched to using DNS over | > HTTPS. If your browsers have done so, they might well be ignoring | > /etc/hosts. | > | this is interesting... imnsho, life is all about balance. Not in this case. It's about how his resolvers are working or not working or not working as he expects. | > | Entering my local IP in a browser gets me to Gerbera's control | > panel. | > | > Now we know that you're running Gerbera on your server. | > | > I don't know how Apache picked Gerbera as the default. But you | > probably don't care anyway. Or maybe you should change the server's | > setup so it defaults into something innocuous. | | it also tells us, on a balance of probability, that the problem is | probably not routing/port related but Apache that does not know what it | has to serve... - so either non registered domain or /etc/hosts So say so to him, not me. And in a way that he's likely to understand and even act upon. Maybe he's already figured it out his problem but he hasn't told us.
On Sat, 2 May 2020 10:36:27 -0400 (EDT) "D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote: <snip>
Sorry, Stephen asked for help. Something was confused or it all would have worked for him.
okay, I am not replying to you off list, or even as cc, my reply is to the mailing list and i am talking with everyone, not just you - i do apologise if you took this personal in any way, it was never my intention :)
I was trying to help reduce that confusion. Why do you consider this noise?
because we do not even know what the problem is and speculating about random things only leads to more confusion to the point where it is noise... it is possible, for example, that the op cannot see "the website" because his network connection is failing intermittently or because his cat walked over his network cable and it became unplugged, so, the thread devolving into the odds and the chance of one thing over that of another, based on scanty information/data = noise - signal to noise ratio and also noise because we are even discussing noise :)
participants (2)
-
ac -
D. Hugh Redelmeier