7 ms·

name.com is very usable and otherwise handy; I don't like this policy, but I wouldn't wish GoDaddy on my worst enemy. (OK, maybe I would) EDIT: I really don't

by lhnn 14y ago

name.com is very usable and otherwise handy; I don't like this policy, but I wouldn't wish GoDaddy on my worst enemy. (OK, maybe I would) EDIT: I really don't understand your thinking; I am the opposite. I respect name.com for being forward about it and not acting like a politician (treating me like a child).

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
> I really don't understand your thinking; I am the opposite. I respect name.com for being forward about it and not acting like a politician (treating me like a child). I respect them for sharing their reasons. I think it is professional. My issue is two fold: - This kind of activity "breaks the internet" on the purest sense possible. It is against spec' for a very good reason, IT IS STUPID. Going to a null domain should give you a null reply. It breaks software and it breaks user's expectations (e.g. if you hit that page because you typo-ed the domain you might assume the domain has gone out of business or been "hacked"). - Their work-around(s) are silly. They are essentially "then use someone else" or "register every single possible sub-domain." No opt-out. They might be very good at business and marketing but they fail on every technological ground you can fail. Someone who fails that badly at understanding the internet isn't someone I want running my DNS of all things...
- sjs382 14y ago
  > - Their work-around(s) are silly. They are essentially "then use someone else" or "register every single possible sub-domain." No opt-out. "Use someone else" is the opt-out, whether you take it to mean "use another registrar" or use "other, non-gratis DNS services. Your other option is to use a wildcard, as I think you understand (though your "register every single possible sub-domain" is a bit misleading). This behavior sucks, but if it's something that bothers you, you're probably the type that should be using a better DNS provider, anyways. That said, I'm a happy customer of name.com.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Using a different nameservice provider only treats the symptom. Name.com is still breaking the internet with this practice.

by lhnn 14y ago

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

> I really don't understand your thinking; I am the opposite. I respect name.com for being forward about it and not acting like a politician (treating me like a child). I respect them for sharing their reasons. I think it is professional. My issue is two fold: - This kind of activity "breaks the internet" on the purest sense possible. It is against spec' for a very good reason, IT IS STUPID. Going to a null domain should give you a null reply. It breaks software and it breaks user's expectations (e.g. if you hit that page because you typo-ed the domain you might assume the domain has gone out of business or been "hacked"). - Their work-around(s) are silly. They are essentially "then use someone else" or "register every single possible sub-domain." No opt-out. They might be very good at business and marketing but they fail on every technological ground you can fail. Someone who fails that badly at understanding the internet isn't someone I want running my DNS of all things...

sjs382 14y ago
> - Their work-around(s) are silly. They are essentially "then use someone else" or "register every single possible sub-domain." No opt-out. "Use someone else" is the opt-out, whether you take it to mean "use another registrar" or use "other, non-gratis DNS services. Your other option is to use a wildcard, as I think you understand (though your "register every single possible sub-domain" is a bit misleading). This behavior sucks, but if it's something that bothers you, you're probably the type that should be using a better DNS provider, anyways. That said, I'm a happy customer of name.com.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Using a different nameservice provider only treats the symptom. Name.com is still breaking the internet with this practice.