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

Google .dev domain early access

domains.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 475 posts

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#211

Post by GordonS »

dehrmann wrote: post #203

When in doubt, racketeer. I've been annoyed by how Google uses Adwords for a while; suppose you're company in a competitive, undifferentiated space. I just searched for "enterprise rental cars," and the first thing below the search box, an ad, was for getaround.com. The second was an ad for Enterprise, the third was the organic result for Enterprise. Google is effectively telling these companies "You wouldn't want so…

You could make the argument with a lot of the (mostly pointless) TLDs that have been released recently, such as .uk, which was a clear money-grab targeting existing .co.uk owners, or .sucks, which feels like an attempt to extort all domain owners.

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#212

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

bitL wrote: post #179
sschueller wrote: post #15

How long until Google will start removing domains that don't fit their "values"?

"Our ML predictor calculated with 95% confidence that in the next 3 years your software will become our competitor, damaging our projected profits. We decided to terminate your domain ownership and auctioned it off to PigsDoAds Inc., effectively immediately. Our ensemble of customer support chatbots wishes you a wonderful day! "

Buy and transfer to namecheap?

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#213

Post by Spivak »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #156
ameliaquining wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.test, .example, and .invalid are also reserved by the RFC and don't have this problem.

> ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS related code. This one looks the safest and least prone to confusion. > ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples. > ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a glance are invalid. Both of these look problematic from a terminology standpoint, not…

Plus "DNS related code" can be stretched pretty far to "code that uses DNS." so it's the one I prefer.

The only thing I wish was easier was having a TLD for network local names but not link-local names. I typically just buy a name for that but it seems clunky since any in-use name that uses public DNS TLDs I feel ought to be DNS server independent.

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#214

Post by Spivak »

sascha_sl wrote: post #49
fastball wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install a root cert? Takes 1 minute.

Yeah sure takes one minute, one minute of wondering if you really wanna bash your head against a wall getting openssl to spit out an X509 cert and then some.

Or use any of the million utilities for setting up a machine-local CA.

mkcert is one.

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#215

Post by ebg13 »

rrdharan wrote: post #127
Arnt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hosted repos, and broke links to those repos and links within them. It also broke processes that relied on the repo, e.g. automatic issue creation in CI, but that's less serious. URLs that change without good reason are a PITA.

They have a process for setting up redirects. They also provide read only access to all public code AIUI: https://code.google.com/archive/about

Setting up a redirect works if you are the administrator of the project...and are still alive. Migrating a project was simple if it didn't have a wiki. There are a lot of details that caused some real headaches. I remember it being like a mini Y2k at the time, and there's no telling how much we just collectively lost from it.

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#216

Post by Spivak »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #118
pexaizix wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me potato.app is as sketchy and shitty as getpotato.com. They simply say "I wanted to buy potato.com but I couldn't"

Is steampowered.com sketchy? Even incredibly large companies often can't get the domains they want because they were bought twenty years ago by some Joe Schmo.

steampowered.com is super sketchy. It's just that most people use the Steam client and it's been around enough time for it to sink in.

Like if an app tried to register apppowered.com it would definitely hurt its image. Obviously massive players are above the rules somewhat.

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#217

Post by rmoriz »

willmadden wrote: post #195

Alphabet has too much cash. They have a well established track record of enthusiastically backing exciting new projects way outside of their core competency just to dump them like hot garbage several years later. They also compete in random new industries each time this happens. It doesn't seem like a smart move to lease a domain from a politically active mega-monopoly that might decide to randomly become your compet…

It's risk management through diversification attempts. Google, like any other large scale extremely successful single product[1] company, hedges market risks in occupying "hot" spaces. Same with MS, Apple and all other giants, even in non-tech.

[1] see financial report of the last year (10K). Search for "We operate our business in multiple operating segments. Google is our only reportable segment. None of our other segments meet the quantitative thresholds to qualify as reportable segments" and "How we make money" (Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419... )

Re: Google .dev domain early access

#219

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

benatkin wrote: post #50

Having used "sudo vi /etc/hosts" to add .dev domains, this gets no I'm going to avoid buying one, but if there are any popular .dev domains I hope I will forget about it before long. I don't want negative feelings from this so often. On the other hand there are plenty of reminders of negative things in politics and the environment, so I guess I've gotten used to it and developed outrage fatigue.

We have RFCs for a reason, so people follow predictable behavior everywhere. And so you don’t build up a ton of work/customization and then suddenly have a surprise like this. Worse, you embed that custom design into a system and then leave and someone else needs to fix that mess.

.test is what you should have been using, precisely for this reason.

Post reply on HN