Jacie, sorry but you are incorrect. Having spent a good angst ridden hour trying to shoehorn MU into a domain name with a 'www' prefix I can only heartily disagree.
At first - coming from the excellent base install of WP single blog, a joy to use compared to the 20 odd other CMS systems I use, I expected MU to be no different. After several fails, meaningless error messages and important messages written too small, or hidden away, and with a fresh cup of coffee I set about trying to find out why the damn install was failing.
It took some time to notice the no-www rant pitched onto the install page, I had glossed over it whilst looking for something meaningful. I followed the link to the home site, then back to MU, then spent 30 odd minutes looking all over the web for a fix, before finding an excellent article on our own forums here about how to hack the code to allow 'www' sites in.
This I duly did - hoorah, it works a treat. Now, I admin my own DNS, I admin the server, I run the Apache and the libraries, I admin hundreds of sites and have been at this for nearly 15 years. It took me an hour of mucking about to get an install of Wordpress - previously the easiest install going - to actually work and I had to hack the code base to do it.
To support a no-www policy may be honourable, the writers may feel its the best campaign they have ever supported, but when you strong arm others who wish to use your software into the same idiom and understanding, surely that campaigns call of freedom of choice degrades into hypocrisy?
I wanted a domain with 'www' in it, that was my choice, if its a choice issue, its of no big deal to add the option into MU without potentially alienating the community from even trying the product in the first place. Its a stupid action and an own goal.
For the benefit of anyone else suffering from this, here's the post I found most beneficial, solution about half-way down by Vimm
http://mu.wordpress.org/forums/topic.php?id=5765&page&replies=7