Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

hccf.onmy.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 410 posts

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#301

Post by interloxia »

_kb wrote: post #288
anilgulecha wrote: post #179

The "one free domain per person" isn't the interesting part really - that will be hard to police unless domain name is a function of ID proof (avoids squatting). 0) The actual intersting part of a new TLD can be growing reputation by post-facto taking away a domain without recourse in case of squatting. Instead of adversarial takedowns (which produce false positives as noted), let anyone challenge an inactive domain…

.id.au already has some similar requirements for associating a domain with a real world (human) identity: https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/the-different-au-dom...

Also .net.au and .com.au are not available for personal use.

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#303

Post by mort96 »

exceptione wrote: post #295
mort96 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will, however, assume that an IT teacher has the ability to recognise, "this isn't working because I'm using an ancient browser". If the teacher is completely unable to use a less ancient browser, the requirement for the project to work on IE6 should be clearly stated, which it was not. However in this case, my friend just helped the IT teacher install Google Chrome on his computer and showed that the site rendered…

I think your friend might have used portableapps.com, they offer many types of browsers . These programs are packaged to install under a restricted account, without requiring admin rights.

And the IT teacher could have done the same, if he was competent.

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#304

Post by oarsinsync »

qq66 wrote: post #244
anilgulecha wrote: post #179

The "one free domain per person" isn't the interesting part really - that will be hard to police unless domain name is a function of ID proof (avoids squatting). 0) The actual intersting part of a new TLD can be growing reputation by post-facto taking away a domain without recourse in case of squatting. Instead of adversarial takedowns (which produce false positives as noted), let anyone challenge an inactive domain…

The much simpler way to avoid squatting is to make .com domains cost $200 a year. This will instantly end the vast majority of domain squatting on the .com TLD and if people can easily get the .com they need for their business then the other TLDs are not going to have much squatting activity.

> The much simpler way to avoid squatting is to make .com domains cost $200 a year

A monopolist hiking prices to this extent will likely see legal action against them. That's a 20x increase you're proposing.

It's also unlikely to have a material effect. .com used to cost $75 a year back in the day, and that didn't stop squatters, and high value domain transfer sales. $75 in 1990s dollars is about $150-$190 today.

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#305

Post by tepitoperrito »

This sounds great in theory, and if you're capable of managing your own DNS servers already possible for US citizens (via locality domains). Who's gonna front the cost of resolving queries for these domains WAS my question... answered by user HumanCCF above: their sponsors and individual donars will (since they plan on operating the service as a "public good" I imagine with a strong technical team they could actually do it! I wish them the best.)

I definitely can appreciate the principles they're espousing even if I'm not gonna be giving them my dollars. More people should care about making sure technology serves humans, not vice versa :)

Locality domain (RFC 1480) rant: Who the heck is Multi-Paradigm Corporation and how come emailing us-dom2@i-theta.com with all of my "T"s crossed and "I"s dotted to register a domain results in silence. No response, not even a "go away".

I know there's some localities where you have to have notarized authorization on city letterhead but they're mostly administered by the people behind https://www.about.us/locality-structure

https://locality-domains.pages.dev/ is a good reference if you don't have WHOIS installed btw. I can't vouch for how up to date it is though since I just query the database myself.

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#306

Post by mfru »

schrodinger wrote: post #254
qq66 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The much simpler way to avoid squatting is to make .com domains cost $200 a year. This will instantly end the vast majority of domain squatting on the .com TLD and if people can easily get the .com they need for their business then the other TLDs are not going to have much squatting activity.

I don't get it. How do you handle 10k people wanting, say, garden.com, without a free market?

the most fair distribution for limited sought-after resources that are inconsequential (like domain names) are raffles. let people apply in a 4-week window and then randomly assign it to one of the applicants.

then don't allow reselling, just allow giving it back and do a raffle again

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#307

Post by mfru »

nonethewiser wrote: post #206
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike the term “domain squatting”. It should be called “domain scalping”.

Or domain ownership.

i don't like normalizing people hoarding things they don't need in order to sell them for way higher prices to other people that do, do you?

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#308

Post by tepitoperrito »

anilgulecha wrote: post #179

The "one free domain per person" isn't the interesting part really - that will be hard to police unless domain name is a function of ID proof (avoids squatting). 0) The actual intersting part of a new TLD can be growing reputation by post-facto taking away a domain without recourse in case of squatting. Instead of adversarial takedowns (which produce false positives as noted), let anyone challenge an inactive domain…

These ideas are gold! Thanks for sharing. I'm gonna noodle on an unholy mix of 2) and 3) since my dynamic DNS provider just asks that you login once every 30 days and a hash of a (valid) state ID or DL would be an acceptable burden I feel for issuing a domain (or subdomain even).

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#309

Post by wccrawford »

hilariously wrote: post #284
mort96 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend almost failed an IT class because his website didn't render at all in IE6. This was during the time of IE9. The teacher just hadn't updated their browser in a long time. I don't get how you get to be an IT teacher without knowing the most basic troubleshooting steps to get assignments to run.

I left community college after a week because my "computer" teacher required us to change our monitors to 640x480 and print out ever step that we completed in things like Notepad or Configuring the Desktop and then every day we'd punch it out and would add it to a three ring binder of all the things we've done. Full Color.

I took a computer class in college (like 25 years ago now?) and corrected the teacher multiple times every class. And it was like 95% things that were in the book that was issued, so I could even point out the page it was on. It was absolutely embarrassing.

Re: .self: A new top-level domain designed to support self-hosting

#310

Post by jon-wood »

mort96 wrote: post #262
HerbManic wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dreamweaver was cool as a beginner because it took a lot of the troublesome parts out of the equation. But it did end up being more of a hindrance than a benefit the further you went in.

I never understood Dreamweaver. The first thing it asked me when making a new website was ... what the resolution of my user's screen is? I don't know that!

Its web development software from the 90s/00s, a period when websites were built by first having a designer meticulously mock everything up in Photoshop on a 640x480 canvas (maybe 800x600 or 1024x768 in later days), that mockup would then be handed over to a web developer (hi, that was me) who would take that mockup, slice it up into a billion little images, and then put them in a wildly complex set of nested HTML tables. The designer would then have a look over it and provide critique on the fact some element was 3px misaligned, or the font size was incorrect.

During this period I was berated by our studio lead for using new fangled technologies like CSS layout that could adapt to different sized screens instead of sticking to the trusty HTML soup Dreamweaver would spit out.

Post reply on HN