The link provided in the about dialog:
https://www.otter-browser.org/
does not work for me anymore.
http://otter-browser.org/ does work.
If https is not needed then don't use it in the link.
Both links work fine here.
@mscz, are you seeing error page? What does it say?
It's working tonight. Best I can remember, there was no visible error, just spinning icon on blank page (indicating busy but taking too long to load). I have had some intermittent trouble with it over the past couple of months. (in USA.)
@mscz, Digital Ocean (well, at least our server) had two maintenance breaks recently, perhaps you were unlucky.
Both work for me, but I'd say that www should 301 redirect to no-www or vice versa.
I've always been inclined to say that www should redirect to no-www (http://web.archive.org/web/20160113100118/http://no-www.org/), but http://www.yes-www.org/why-use-www/ makes a very convincing argument to the contrary.
By default, all popular Web browsers assume the HTTP protocol. In doing so, the software prepends the 'http://' onto the requested URL and automatically connect to the HTTP server on port 80. Why then do many servers require their websites to communicate through the www subdomain? Mail servers do not require you to send emails to recipient@mail.domain.com. Likewise, web servers should allow access to their pages though the main domain unless a particular subdomain is required.
You should use www because today you have a small web site, and tomorrow you want a big web site. Really big.
[…]
When using a provider such as Heroku or Akamai to host your web site, the provider wants to be able to update DNS records in case it needs to redirect traffic from a failing server to a healthy server. This is set up using DNS CNAME records, and the naked domain cannot have a CNAME record.
[…]
Another reason has to do with cookies. One common web site optimization is to serve static content from a subdomain, such as static.example.com. If you are using www, then this is no problem; your site’s cookies won’t be sent to the static subdomain (unless you explicitly set them up to do so). If you use the naked domain, the cookies get sent to all subdomains (by recent browsers that implement RFC 6265), slowing down access to static content, and possibly causing caching to not work properly. The only way to get around this problem and keep the naked domain is to buy a second domain name just for your static content. Twitter, for instance, which does not use www, had to buy new domain names just for static content.
@Frenzie, for now it's not important for us, but I may later enforce one of them.
It's not important from that whole cookie perspective, but I'll have to look up the search engine perspective.