[sf-lug] canonical: [www.]sf-lug.org, or [www.]sf-lug.com ?

Michael Paoli Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
Tue Jul 14 20:48:11 PDT 2015

Yep, I'd tend to think/presume/guess [www.]sf-lug.org as the canonical
over [www.]sf-lug.com, given both the nature of the group, at least
original purposes of .org vs. .com, and also [www.]sf-lug.org
having a longer history, by some years, than [www.]sf-lug.com.

About the only advantage I can think of that might favor .com for
canonical, is that some browsers do (or did) tend to favor and/or
default to .com if TLD wasn't supplied.  But that may be more so
historical behavior than not.  I think nowadays most browsers (often
annoyingly) default to searching if it doesn't look like a complete or
valid URL or domain.  So seems to me .com vs. .org probably wouldn't
matter much (if at all) on that browser consideration much, if at all,

But as Jim catches up on reading/skimming his e-mail, makes it to some
SF-LUG and/or other meetings, I'm guestimating we'll hear a bit more
on the topic in general, and from the authoritative source as to any
actual decision there to be made.

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] sf-lug.{org,com} & Network Solutions / Web.com
> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:56:50 -0700

> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
>> I'm pretty sure Jim stated that sf-lug.com is canonical.
> I'm pretty sure he did.
> Just a datum to consider:  In my experience, strangers guessing at an
> organisation's domain name will tend to guess .org first when the
> organisation is a Linux user group.

More information about the sf-lug mailing list