USA and UK performing/supporting ethnic cleansing, nothing new here. Still the story is truly heart breaking to read.
It's heartbreaking, but not entirely true. The UK purchased the archipelago for $3M, a detail that was left out of the article.
.io considered harmful
61–70 of 254 posts
Re: .io considered harmful
#62Boycotting a TLD is one thing, but does anyone have recommendations for a TLD that they'd recommend? I.E. One where the revenue is likely to have a positive impact somewhere.
Re: .io considered harmful
#63this fits well with my vision: every website will have unskippable land acknowledgement prompts that list the entire history of that nation
Re: .io considered harmful
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is good advice, but I simply value vanity TLDs too much to ever stop. I've got all of my projects' domains on absurd gTLDs and I'd never have it any other way. My users enjoy it and so do I.
One thing to consider is to have your publicly-visible web sites on vanity domain/domains, but all your server infrastructure on a domain in your local stable ccTLD.
Why does it even matter what domain your servers use internally? Most servers I've ever seen were actually using raw IPs, and the few exceptions used an internal DNS system that couldn't have cared less what the internet thought their domain was.
Re: .io considered harmful
#65I would go further and say this: Never treat foreign ccTLD’s (two-letter domains) as anything you can just register and use a domain in. You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in. Your domain name is often your most secure key to your entire online identity, and you want that to be on as a secure legal footing as possible. Older discussion here: https://new…
> You should only ever use a ccTLD of your own country or region you actually have your main presence in.
Don't do this either.
Countries have rules and regulations around who can own certain domains. It's really annoying when there's a million problems to fix and a business restructure potentially affects whether there even has to be a conversation on if it affects the use of a domain name.
Re: .io considered harmful
#66This sounds like someone who couldn't buy their desired .io domain and now sounds bitter about it trying to spoil it for everyone.
It's so wierd how I expected the article to be about something linked to the io TLD, but it's completely unrelated to computers, in fact the article would be way more relevant if it dropped the title and conclusion, because I learned something, but not that some TLDs are considered harmful.
Re: .io considered harmful
#67Talking about exotic TLDs:
An overlooked aspect is that some of them may be way slower to resolve on DNS level:
https://blog.nameshield.com/blog/2020/04/30/choosing-the-rig...
For example .io is about 50ms slower than .com on p50 and p85 percentiles (2020 data).
If you have a "serious" domain you may not want it on a "slow" TLD.
Re: .io considered harmful
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
exactly, the 'about' page, is all I needed to see
I looked at the about page because of your comment, and wow you were right. I've rarely seen such a concentrated collection of "I'm a good person who believes good things" self-pats on the back. Really cringe.
It reads like a Twitter profile (for better or worse).
Re: .io considered harmful
#69This is so washed up as a take. Let’s go to mars instead of pouring energy into blaming the British for everything.
Re: .io considered harmful
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing to consider is to have your publicly-visible web sites on vanity domain/domains, but all your server infrastructure on a domain in your local stable ccTLD.
Why does it even matter what domain your servers use internally? Most servers I've ever seen were actually using raw IPs, and the few exceptions used an internal DNS system that couldn't have cared less what the internet thought their domain was.
Evolving such an infrastructure is incredibly painful. Want to move to a zero-trust security model? How about migrating only some services to a different provider?
Set it up right from the start with a domain name you control (or one that is reserved for private use in an RFC). You can still use internal DNS if you want the additional layer of obscurity.