On 20 December 2010 14:39, Adam Voss wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 5:45 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>> Perhaps this is something we could change when Sage 5.0 is released.
>> People can expect more compatibility issues when using a major
>> upgrade.
>
> Would it be proper then to open a trac ticket with a pat
On Dec 2, 5:45 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> Perhaps this is something we could change when Sage 5.0 is released.
> People can expect more compatibility issues when using a major
> upgrade.
Would it be proper then to open a trac ticket with a patch against the
5.0 milestone, or just wait and see onc
> But its less clear there is an agreed alternative for HTTPSconnections.
I suppose it is mostly by convention rather than an official port
assignment. Default ports for HTTP and HTTPS are 80 and 443,
respectively. Since non-root users usually cannot use the first 1024
ports, 8080 gets used for HT
On 1 December 2010 21:00, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
On 1 December 2010 20:58, Adam wrote:
> To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
> expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
> running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
> expected. The main issue I could see with changing the
To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
expected. The main issue I could see with changing the default is
that individuals running with the de
To provide a networking perspective of thing, 8080 would be an
expected and sensible default port for HTTP traffic. If the server is
running HTTPS (i.e. notebook(secure=True)) then 8443 would be
expected. The main issue I could see with changing the default is
that individuals running with the de
On 21 November 2010 16:05, tuxiano wrote:
> I'm not an expert of the matter, but I'm the user who made the comment
> and I'd like to add that I don't have problems with sites that use
> port 8080 while I can't connect to sites that use port 8000, for
> example I can't connect to
>
> http://t2nb.ma
On 24 November 2010 22:13, Donald Alan Morrison wrote:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
That was the link I intended to post - instead I posted the same link twice.
As you can see, 8080 would be a more sensible default port, avoiding
8000 which is for remote desktop management.
On 21 November 2010 16:05, tuxiano wrote:
> I'm not an expert of the matter, but I'm the user who made the comment
> and I'd like to add that I don't have problems with sites that use
> port 8080 while I can't connect to sites that use port 8000, for
> example I can't connect to
>
> http://t2nb.ma
On Nov 24, 2:04 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 21 November 2010 15:43, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> > On 2010-11-21 15:18, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> >> A comment from a user recently that he can only use port 80 and 8080 by
> >> his employer, makes me think we should change the default port.
> > I wou
I'm not an expert of the matter, but I'm the user who made the comment
and I'd like to add that I don't have problems with sites that use
port 8080 while I can't connect to sites that use port 8000, for
example I can't connect to
http://t2nb.math.washington.edu:8000/
So I think that switching fro
12 matches
Mail list logo
