3 ms·

unfortunately having a domain is not enough you have to be on twitter maybe youll have to be on g+ sometime soon too then you dont own it anymore additionally,

by zobzu 15y ago

unfortunately having a domain is not enough you have to be on twitter maybe youll have to be on g+ sometime soon too then you dont own it anymore additionally, ive always worried about the fact that the dns registar generally own your dns and just let you use it for a fee.

sixtofour 15y ago
Yes, for some reason we say we "own" our domains, but I always seem to have to renew my lease.
- zobzu 15y ago
  its funny that i get minus karma for this post lol. but yeah id prefer some decentralized dns system where i would own my domain somehow well then again, dns depends also on static ips which we dont really own. with ipv6 we can be one step closer to owning the ip without being an isp however. can also setup rdns more easily.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    >dns depends also on static ips. Not really, there's dynamic DNS. My home connection has a dynamic (well, semi-static) IP, so I use a dynamic DNS provider and a small monitoring utility to auto-update the IP when it changes.
    - zobzu 15y ago
      No, I'm talking about hosting the DNS, that is, the DNS server, not the IP the DNS record points to. When you buy a DNS record you need a nameserver with a static IP to handle the DNS record. Then you can assign this record to dynamic IPs if you like. Technically the nameserver could also work on a dynamic IP, but practically this doesnt work out in this order. Even blah.com depends on com and com depends on . (aka dot) DNS being hierarchical, you never actually own the thing =/ There are decentralized DNS attempts tho
- pyre 15y ago
  True, but you're not paying Google for your @gmail.com address, so you have less say, than if you are a paying customer.
- wmf 15y ago
  At least you have some rights under UDRP, but you have no rights on Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
wmf 15y ago
You have a point there. I went through all the trouble of owning my identity (I don't even use Gmail) and then someone told me that he can't read my blog unless I pipe it into Twitter, because he only reads Twitter now. Am I a free man or a crackpot? I'm not even sure any more.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  That "someone" is doing far more harm than he realize. His refusal to use any syndication system but twitter is akin to a refusal to use any text messaging system but Facebook. (There is RSS on the one hand, and SMTP/XMPP on the other.) People like this are powerful contributors to the network effect favourable to proprietary services like Twitter and Facebook. I know that true freedom is not easy (Postfix configuration through SSH is not for my mom). But one can at least use proprietary providers of open protocols.

by zobzu 15y ago

sixtofour 15y ago

Yes, for some reason we say we "own" our domains, but I always seem to have to renew my lease.

zobzu 15y ago
its funny that i get minus karma for this post lol. but yeah id prefer some decentralized dns system where i would own my domain somehow well then again, dns depends also on static ips which we dont really own. with ipv6 we can be one step closer to owning the ip without being an isp however. can also setup rdns more easily.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >dns depends also on static ips. Not really, there's dynamic DNS. My home connection has a dynamic (well, semi-static) IP, so I use a dynamic DNS provider and a small monitoring utility to auto-update the IP when it changes.
  - zobzu 15y ago
    No, I'm talking about hosting the DNS, that is, the DNS server, not the IP the DNS record points to. When you buy a DNS record you need a nameserver with a static IP to handle the DNS record. Then you can assign this record to dynamic IPs if you like. Technically the nameserver could also work on a dynamic IP, but practically this doesnt work out in this order. Even blah.com depends on com and com depends on . (aka dot) DNS being hierarchical, you never actually own the thing =/ There are decentralized DNS attempts tho
pyre 15y ago
True, but you're not paying Google for your @gmail.com address, so you have less say, than if you are a paying customer.
wmf 15y ago
At least you have some rights under UDRP, but you have no rights on Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

wmf 15y ago

You have a point there. I went through all the trouble of owning my identity (I don't even use Gmail) and then someone told me that he can't read my blog unless I pipe it into Twitter, because he only reads Twitter now. Am I a free man or a crackpot? I'm not even sure any more.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
That "someone" is doing far more harm than he realize. His refusal to use any syndication system but twitter is akin to a refusal to use any text messaging system but Facebook. (There is RSS on the one hand, and SMTP/XMPP on the other.) People like this are powerful contributors to the network effect favourable to proprietary services like Twitter and Facebook. I know that true freedom is not easy (Postfix configuration through SSH is not for my mom). But one can at least use proprietary providers of open protocols.