3 ms·

Well, you don't have to only accept DNS records! It's like arguing that independent email providers shouldn't provide general addresses like @gmail.com or @fast

Well, you don't have to only accept DNS records! It's like arguing that independent email providers shouldn't provide general addresses like @gmail.com or @fastmail.com if they're going to provide any support for custom domains. You could do both. In fact, offering support for custom domains is usually an opportunity to up-sell, particularly to the kind of customers who have already shown that they're willing to spend money on an on-going basis (by paying for the DNS name).

steveklabnik 6y ago
I’m still not sure how that solves the problem, but regardless, the point is that there are many possibilities and tons of complexity. It is not a simple, unambiguous problem with a clear correct answer.
- solatic 6y ago
  The problem is caused over people squatting on desirable package names, right? Only solves the issue up to the point where people start to squat on desirable namespaces. If you only develop one or two packages, you don't really care about the squatting issue. Especially if a non-DNS-namespace is free. Light users are generally unaffected by the problem, so they continue to fit within a "free" offering. Squatting is a non-issue with DNS. Nobody can take your domain from you; effectively, using DNS outsources the control issue to DNS control. The only issue is to guarantee consumers that their builds won't break just because their packages went through forced deprecation when DNS control transferred. The people who suffer from the issue badly enough to need DNS namespacing are either heavy users (who are therefore much more likely to pay) or corporate entities that actually desire a paid option.
  - steveklabnik 6y ago
    For what it's worth, and I don't have a ton of numbers here, the loudest people who want namespaces are people who haven't published a lot of packages, in my estimation. I don't have numbers on that, just gut feels. > Squatting is a non-issue with DNS. We must be living on a different web :)

steveklabnik 6y ago

I’m still not sure how that solves the problem, but regardless, the point is that there are many possibilities and tons of complexity. It is not a simple, unambiguous problem with a clear correct answer.

solatic 6y ago
The problem is caused over people squatting on desirable package names, right? Only solves the issue up to the point where people start to squat on desirable namespaces. If you only develop one or two packages, you don't really care about the squatting issue. Especially if a non-DNS-namespace is free. Light users are generally unaffected by the problem, so they continue to fit within a "free" offering. Squatting is a non-issue with DNS. Nobody can take your domain from you; effectively, using DNS outsources the control issue to DNS control. The only issue is to guarantee consumers that their builds won't break just because their packages went through forced deprecation when DNS control transferred. The people who suffer from the issue badly enough to need DNS namespacing are either heavy users (who are therefore much more likely to pay) or corporate entities that actually desire a paid option.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  For what it's worth, and I don't have a ton of numbers here, the loudest people who want namespaces are people who haven't published a lot of packages, in my estimation. I don't have numbers on that, just gut feels. > Squatting is a non-issue with DNS. We must be living on a different web :)