Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kelly “STrRedWolf” Price
Tech-head furry geek at large
Tech-head furry geek at large

Kelly's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has shared content

A technical post on HTTP over Unix sockets and how to handle them in URLs.

I doubt there's any doubt over how HTTP servers can handle Unix sockets as part of their listening socket set.  But there's something not settled:  How to address them in a URL?  There are several ways of transcoding, but all have caveats.

Instead, let us follow a tip from IETF RFC 2732, which concerns itself on how raw IPv6 addresses were handled.  In short:


...the address is encapsulated in square brackets.

I thus propose that Unix sockets be addressed as such:


Following IETF rules, the host MUST be "localhost" and the unix socket path MUST be encapsulated by square brackets.  Clients parsing these URLs MUST ether connect to the Unix socket locally or present an error to the user that they do not support this method of communication.

Post has attachment
So a friend asked me about the layout of Shotgun Shells, and I've described the "Cheers" insipred layout along with the entire building overview.

This got me thinking and researching, and it turns out "Cheers" own outer shots were done in Boston outside an actual bar.  The inside shots were at a Paramount studio but the actual bar made a replica bar nearby, a short walking distance from a Boston T stop (the Blue line Aquarium stop).

From there, I wondered... and found a Westin between Back Bay Amtrak and Copley Green Line T, and the price was halfway decent for a room.  Perfect!  Now I needed to budget it for a trip up on Friday night (check the time to get there, remember that), overnight Friday and Saturday, MIT Flea Market and then Cheers, come back Sunday.

Ooooh what fun for research!

Someone tell Lennart Poettering that systemd is turning into Emacs.  It's just a text editor away from doing just that.

Stop loading it up!  What are you, Busybox?

Post has shared content
When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names. 

Over the years, as Google+ grew and its community became established, we steadily opened up this policy, from allowing +Page owners to use any name of their choosing to letting YouTube users bring their usernames into Google+. Today, we are taking the last step: there are no more restrictions on what name you can use. 

We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be. Thank you for expressing your opinions so passionately, and thanks for continuing to make Google+ the thoughtful community that it is.

Post has shared content
Wait while more posts are being loaded