Out of interest, how did this happen without any investigation into possible consequences etc?
It’s a huge change that surely warranted special attention before making it happen?
It’s a huge change that surely warranted special attention before making it happen?
So yes, we didn't anticipate how many people weren't following the best practices, but that would have been hard to determine prior to doing the thing anyway. There were also lots of people who had the mindset of "We won't change anything until it stops working", so in some sense a lot of it was unavoidable. See e.g.: https://github.com/laravel/valet/issues/204 https://github.com/laravel/valet/issues/294 https://github.com/laravel/valet/issues/431 (note that Laravel users were responsible for a non-trivial fraction of the total problems experienced, and that we only discovered all this post-HSTS-preloading). The problem was repeatedly pointed out and the maintainers refused to fix it until it actually broke. So, inevitably, it broke, and then they fixed it.
I've always hated Google for egoistically claiming this tld, and ICANN for letting them.
It enables zero config local development configuration, whereby at the time it would make your locally running dev server available on .dev
So instead of having to spin up a local server and then visiting say 127.0.0.1:3000,
I could instead just visit myappname.dev and it would show me what would previously show on localhost or it would spin up a server first for that app then show it to me.
They switched to .test in response to google’s change.
Official site: https://pow.cx
Thread on change from .dev to .test https://github.com/basecamp/pow/issues/386
Visit http://pow.cx
Also, just because someone is using a fake domain doesn't preclude that from being created as a real domain name farther down the line. That's why you shouldn't use fake domain names. This problem has been known since at least the 90s and is not a good habit to get into. Them now being real makes them actually more useful (and not reliant on potentially unsynced local-only config).
I mean, I THINK this is "properly configured", but it also isn't a huge deal to avoid. Just was annoying when it started happening. Didn't FEEL like I was misconfigured. :-)
In this particular case it sounds like your resolver was set up to try an external resolution first and then append an internal domain if the external resolution failed. And as you say, this clearly worked just fine for a long, long time. Then it suddenly started failing one day, for reasons unrelated to anything you changed.
At this point, most people would find it reasonable to blame the external change for breaking their fully functional, correctly working, "properly configured" setup. Some, perhaps contrarian or perhaps more cautious, would note that the "properly configured" approach only worked so long as external systems played ball. I think it might be the case that you were bitten by this assumption that seemed safe at the time, leading to the awkward and uncomfortable conclusion that your systems were indeed misconfigured.
I would argue that, of the two options, option B is the less onerous one, and less restrictive on the future growth of the Internet. It's not that hard to set up some aliases to be able to SSH quickly into the right hosts without having to manually type out longer paths.