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

311–320 of 410 posts

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

#311

Post by jon-wood »

mathstuf wrote: post #231
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.

Heh…I once was in a state-level coding event (it was a small portion of a larger competition) where half of the test was turning in code on a CD during the competition, with the written half during the event. My CD was deemed unusable for whatever reason (it had worked on XP and Fedora 6 or 7 at home) and didn't count towards my score. I still got second in the event. I declined to continue because I couldn't trust t…

I dropped out of college (the UK version, I guess equivalent to senior high school in the US) shortly after discovering that the final assessment of my Computing project would be performed by the examiner reading a printed version of the source code, without ever executing it, because the exam board were so scared of examiners computers being destroyed.

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

#312

Post by jon-wood »

miki123211 wrote: post #248
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue? Is it actually a substantial expense? The TLD itself only has to publish the nameserver records, which generally have a TTL of about a day. A DNS response is a few hundred bytes. Big DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare would make requests for every actively used domain every day, but then cache them. Smaller…

You can't do it in the general case. Most TLDs need to allow domain transfers because projects do genuinely change ownership sometimes. If you allow transfers, you allow reselling by definition (because you can't physically determine whether cash changes hands). This isn't like tickets, where "return to pool and let an interested party buy it" is a viable strategy. Tickets are fungible, domains are non-fungible.

If the focus of this is truly on one-per-person personal domains then you don't need to allow transfers and reselling. (Although you'll probably get a grey market of people just repointing DNS to someone else anyway, because if there's money to be had someone will take it)

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

#315

Post by Peacefulz »

DonHopkins wrote: post #134
goldenarm wrote: post #35

Remember when the .tk TLD became free 20 years ago ? Every hobbyist took one, then scammers followed, then Facebook and antiviruses started blocking it. I remember publishing a website for a class on my .tk domain, the teacher couldn't open it and I almost got a failing grade because of it.

At least https://tcl.tk redirects => https://www.tcl-lang.org/

I was hoping to see the classic doctor redirect banner when I hit that link. Still so very cool that they kept their domain active this whole time!

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

#317

Post by Tor3 »

wccrawford wrote: post #309
hilariously wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In college I one year had a physics teacher who refused to believe that you could hear the harmonics of a guitar string simply by lightly touching the string at the right place, e.g. in the middle (12th fret) to hear the octave. Nothing could convince him that this was possible. That year was when several of us spent a good part of the week bowling in a nearby bowling hall, either because we didn't have to take the class (the curriculum was years behind what we had already done before college), or the teachers were so incompetent that there was no point attending. Fortunately the other educational years (everything after middle school, that year excepted) were great though.

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

#318

Post by AnthonyMouse »

miki123211 wrote: post #248
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How are you going to pay for the (substantial) cost of running a TLD without registration fee revenue? Is it actually a substantial expense? The TLD itself only has to publish the nameserver records, which generally have a TTL of about a day. A DNS response is a few hundred bytes. Big DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare would make requests for every actively used domain every day, but then cache them. Smaller…

You can't do it in the general case. Most TLDs need to allow domain transfers because projects do genuinely change ownership sometimes. If you allow transfers, you allow reselling by definition (because you can't physically determine whether cash changes hands). This isn't like tickets, where "return to pool and let an interested party buy it" is a viable strategy. Tickets are fungible, domains are non-fungible.

> Most TLDs need to allow domain transfers because projects do genuinely change ownership sometimes.

That's fine. It's not the transferring that you punish, it's the offering for sale. Good luck squatting when publishing any solicitation to sell the domain is the thing that causes you to lose it. How many domains are you going to squat on and pay renewal fees for when you have no way to let the public know you're willing to sell them that won't cause you to lose them?

> This isn't like tickets, where "return to pool and let an interested party buy it" is a viable strategy. Tickets are fungible, domains are non-fungible.

What does fungibility have to do with whether you can return something to the pool? The lack of fungibility makes it work even better, because if you want a specific domain and you find someone squatting on it, you can report them advertising it for sale. When the registry verifies that the report is true then the person filing the original report can be given first crack at the domain when it goes back into the pool.

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

#319

Post by Tor3 »

71bw wrote: post #277
repeekad wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s needed to get into college and that’s it, which is needed to get your first maybe second job and that’s it, which is needed to…

...attendance? I landed a spot in likely the best economics uni in Poland while having 52% attendance in my final HS year, out of which perhaps 10% of the absence was due to illness.

It all depends on the country and the local rules, which can also change from year to year. Attendence didn't matter much, if at all, in my day, but right now it matters. Extremely so. Student's couldn't, until this year (when this was finally revised) even visit the school nurse without getting a "no attendance", which would count negatively with respect to the mandatory attendance requirement for advancing further. And even for receiving the common stipend.

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

#320

Post by lolc »

bandrami wrote: post #252
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.

What were these "troublesome parts"? The whole point of HTML's design is that it's incredibly easy for a human to write correctly.

> The whole point of HTML's design is that it's incredibly easy for a human to write correctly.

A lot of people (me included) used text editors to write HTML. The process was not easy, and the results mostly not correct.

HTML at the time was intended as an application of SGML. This is the first example of HTML from RFC 1866 that laid out HTML 2.0 in 1995:

    
    Parsing Example
    
Some text. *wow*
Using an HTML editor was required if you wanted to get anywhere near that standard.
Post reply on HN