Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking' 167

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the just-bragging-rights dept.
miller60 writes "Open source evangelist Bruce Perens has launched OpenSourceParking, a service designed to boost domain parking on open source software. The project is a response to a large gain by Microsoft in the April Netcraft survey, with Windows' share jumping 5 percent as domain registrar Go Daddy moved 4.5 million parked domains from Linux to Windows Server 2003. To regain that share, Perens is calling on open source users to park undeveloped domains at OpenSourceParking, with the advertising revenue being used to fund political advocacy efforts on behalf of open source software. Parking-for-profit has grown into a significant business in recent years. Despite ambivalence over the value of these sites, Perens appears to believe it merits a focused effort for the open source community."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking' More

Perens Launches 'OpenSourceParking'

Comments Filter:
  • Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?

    We all know that all the vast majority [netcraft.com] of high performing websites run Apache on a free unix-like O/S.

    Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?
    • Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?

      What else is he going to do? He took too long with UserLinux and Ubuntu ate his lunch. At this point the only thing he has is time . . .

    • Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:16AM (#15147493) Homepage
      Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

      Such stats are the reason Windows is in the place it is today.
      • And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?
        • And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?

          Numbers can mean what you want them to mean. The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing. Some will find this slow, others fast. The point is that MS is 'en route' to dominate (or at least be a major player) yet another CS-related market. Time only will tell if they'll be able to sustain this growth.

          Hardly doomed.

          • Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:5, Informative)

            by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @08:26AM (#15147845)
            "The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing."

            Uh, apart from this blib in the radar, IIS has been pretty stable at around 20% since october 2003 (and before that date, IIS's share was DROPPING). And if you look at stats at Netcraft, you will see that IIS made an entry to the list back in 1996. So it's 10 years, not 5. In about 18 months, IIS rose to about 20% and now, over EIGHT years later, it's STILL at that 20%!

            Oh, be still my beating heart!
          • Which 5 years is this? IIS has been out over 10 years. It was a player in the server market almost immediately upon release as Netscape's product was expensive and IIS had all sorts of custom windows based features (as well as ease of administration).
    • Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

      PHBs run companies. So, the answer is yes.

    • “Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?”

      I don't think so. You'd think that those obnoxious evangelists would be a bit more mature and all, but quite honestly I'd have to say this strikes me as among the stupidest things I've ever seen. I mean, come on – the entire site itself is basically saying "we aren't doing anything useful, but if we're lucky it will change a few statistics and maybe even magically convince people open source is better". I could have sworn these guy

      • Re:Let's hope it's as successful as his UserLinux (Score:4, Insightful)

        by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @08:43AM (#15147915)
        There is a bigger issue here... Netcraft should not be counting parked domains at all. It should be counting sites that actually have valid content. The big registrars parking services are well known and easily identifyable. You don't need to weed out 100% of parked domains, just the majority. When netcraft counts parked domains, the results lose meaning.

        It's like a pollster calling phone numbers sequentially, and claiming that all unanswered calls indicate that the person has "no opinion" on the subject.

        • Netcraft should not be counting parked domains at all. It should be counting sites that actually have valid content.

          They used to do this, making a distinction between "all domains" and "active domains". But their current Web server Survey doesn't seem to have the active-doomain data or graphs any more.

          I wonder why they dropped them? I'd always thought that this was the interesting data, not the total that included inactive or parked sites.

          Actually, the two data sets were usually not all that different.
          • They used to do this, making a distinction between "all domains" and "active domains". But their current Web server Survey doesn't seem to have the active-doomain data or graphs any more.

            I wonder why they dropped them? I'd always thought that this was the interesting data, not the total that included inactive or parked sites.

            As would anybody. As usual, when logic fails, follow the money.
            • As usual, when logic fails, follow the money.

              So how does netcraft make money by omitting the active-sites data? Is Microsoft paying them to not publish this data?

              That might make sense. How else could it be worthwhile to publish the wrong set of numbers?

              Google actively works to defeat sites that try to game their rankings. I'd think that netcraft would want to do the same. After all, to them a "parked" domain is little other than an attempt to bias the site statistics. Those aren't actually sites at all
        • Interesting thing is that the free domain registration at the live.com beta will drive this up even more!
    • Who cares if Microsoft can claim an extra 5%? Do such stats ever influence companies choosing a platform?

      You're...you're kidding, right? That wouldn't even crack the top 100 of dumbest reasons to choose a platform. That would come just behind "What color is the server rack?".

    • "Seriously - is this worth Bruce wasting his time on?"

      Since when does the open source community, or its leaders, worry about what's actually worth wasting time on? This sort of nonsense shows what a joke most of the open source community has become -- its leaders are more concerned with persuing vendettas against Windows adoption than actually making open source software better and more approachable to end users.
    • As I've posted before on Slashdot (I'd link if I was a paying subscriber), I've been unhappy that GoDaddy put ads up on my parked domain since I moved one to them in October. Register.com never did that in the 7 years I parked the domain with them. (I know, I'm paying much less with GoDaddy, yes. But it's still my domain as long as I'm paying for it.)

      I just moved it to OpenSourceParking.com. It's basically a "free" way for me to help counter the anti-open-source lobby.*

      * Free in that I don't have the de
    • We all know that all the vast majority of high performing websites run Apache on a free unix-like O/S.

      We know that.

      Unfortunately, it is still the case that most people in the world do not think like us, do not follow the same news sources as us, and don't have your heartfelt belief in Apache's superiority.

      It would be nice if the world would just leave us alone to code and run our own software. Unfortunately, they don't. We have to face software patenting, DMCA, TCPA, and whatever new law and technical hu

  • Don't. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @05:46AM (#15147427)
    a service designed to boost domain parking on open source software.

    Er... and how is this a good thing? Parked domain are an atrocity, something that should be eradicated off the face of the public namespace; the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker before a real service gets put onto that name.

    Somehow, I wouldn't want to push the stats of people who pee on the street the most. The "market presence" isn't always good.

    • Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 )
      Parked domains exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.
      • Spam exists and isn't going away soon, so we may as well make the best of it. Or not.
      • Parked domains exist and aren't going away any time soon, so we might as well make the best of it.

        To me, "Host not found" is good enough.

        How many people when accidentally making a typo on a domainname and 50 porn sites pop up all over the place or you come to one of these helpful metalink sites, do you just stop what you're doing, drop your pants, and proceed?

        Domain parking is about as respectable as phishing or spam.

        • Domain parking is about as respectable as phishing or spam.

          Maybe, but it's occasionally understandable. Look at whitehouse.org and whitehouse.com, and compare them with whitehouse.gov for an example. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to register a domain "close" to yours.

          I mean, imagine how embarrassed those first two sites must be to be sharing a name with the likes of Gerge Bush and his gang!

          But this is somewhat a minimal comment, because if you're going to register typo variants of your site's name, it

    • Re:Don't. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @05:59AM (#15147456)
      How about reading the website before you post? Let me quote:
      Microsoft has been paying the large domain resellers to move their "parked" sites to IIS on Microsoft Server. Moving the parked customers of a single large reseller, GoDaddy.com, caused a shift of 4.5 Million domain names, or 5% of total server share from Apache to Microsoft IIS in the Netcraft report. This is an "appearance" change only, because the sites involved have no content. But managers believe figures like those in the Netcraft report, and act on them. It's time for the Free Software / Open Source community to fight back.

      So regardless of whether it's a good or bad thing, it is necessary.
      • No. Domain parking should be forbidden. that would solve that shit much cleaner. omg they shit their pants, we have to do the same because managers believe in pantshitting ( what ever :p)
        • It doesn't matter what you think, or what any of us think about domain parking. Domain parking is NOT forbidden, and managers believe in Netcraft reports. Those are facts, and there is nothing we can do to change those facts.

      • Re:Don't. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert@@@chromablue...net> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @07:18AM (#15147640)
        Here's an idea, a novel one, I know. How about lobbying Netcraft to, say, better track and determine which domains are parked, versus 'real'? It shouldn't be too hard. Some regexs, bayesian stuff, and then they could differentiate servers with 'real' content, which is a win win situation - their statistics are more relevant, and "we" solve the problem.
        • I'll give you a cookie if manage to do so. But that's only half the solution. Will managers actually look at (and understand) the differences? If not, then it won't help at all.
          • See, that's the thing... they probably won't need to. If you (Netcraft) do this - it's in their interest to make the "real sites" server statistics their primary point of focus. Having determined that information, that's what's more valuable in the real world, and what will happen then is that the 'whole of web, parked included' statistics will be relegated to a trivia point in the background.

            Well, hopefully.

          • Will managers look at the differences? Yes, I think they do - this is why Netcraft sells their SSL server survey. First they educate their potential customers by telling them how vague the main survey is, and how they can get a much more accurate version if they only hand over some lucre.

            The managers have been told that there is a big difference already, any of them that are serious about the statistics (ie, who havn't already made up their minds based on marketing) will pay for the SSL survey.
          • They already do. Look around on their site. Been a while but they have a study where they removed the obviously parked nothing sites maybe by unique machines or something like that; but I think they had some algorithm for whacking out GoDaddy and other leeches of progress.

            TimJowers
        • How about lobbying Netcraft to, say, better track and determine which domains are parked, versus 'real'? It shouldn't be too hard. Some regexs, bayesian stuff, and then they could differentiate servers with 'real' content

          If you develop this filter that can separate real web sites from 'parked' sites (AKA link farms), please give it to Google. I'm tired of my top 10 search results being peppered with link farms.

        • Re:Don't. (Score:3, Informative)

          by revelation0 ( 164235 )
          If you clicked on the link, they already attempt to do this via their "Active Sites" which shows Microsoft with a 0.92% gain over the same period. You can read more about how they determine an active site here:

          http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html#activ e [netcraft.com]
      • I know this is news for nerds but please. We all know most business managers are not technical and can make stupendously silly decisions when they do not understanding technology. But the is a very good reason they are managers, they are good at business. One thing they will have no trouble understanding is the underhand marketing tactics of an abusive monopoly.

        Any technology guy can say:

        "We have two options for our web servers, one is technically superior and the other is run by a company that is actively

        • But the is a very good reason they are managers, they are good at business. One thing they will have no trouble understanding is the underhand marketing tactics of an abusive monopoly.

          Your experience with management is far different than mine. The reason people in my department are managers is because they weren't good software engineers. Generally they realized it and jumped at a line management position when one became available. Thanks to these folks who were "promoted" out of the way, all of our i

      • The only people who care about these numbers are operating system advocates, specifically Linux zealots, who have been touting their leadership in domain parking-err-"marketshare" for a decade now.

        Good luck finding any "manager" who gives a rats ass.

      • that's faulty logic, just because someone (even someone I admire) says this is how managers are influenced doesn't make it true. For those shops that roll their own, applications and the langauge framework are the usual means of determining how a real functioning domain are hosted. And for those that don't, features and functionality determine the hosting provider (what's it going to do for me/my company?)
      • ...regardless of whether it's a good or bad thing, it is necessary.

        Next somebody will be saying it's necessary for OpenSource software to install spyware.

        Domain parking, which takes resources out of circulation and creates nothing but ownership, is the antithesis of OpenSource. No logic can justify embracing it as a practice. What would be more consistent with the ideals of OpenSource would be to publicize the facts, show that people who believe these inflated Netcraft numbers are being made fools of, and l

    • Re:Don't. (Score:4, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @05:59AM (#15147457) Homepage Journal
      How do you get an Under Construction sign without actual hosting?

      Bruce has setup a service to allow your open source project to have an Open Source under construction sign.

    • Re:Don't. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shmlco ( 594907 )
      Precisely. All we need are more parked domains chock full of Google ads and banners. Google should just block all of them so that they stop clogging up search results, and especially so if the page contains the words "This Doman For Sale!"
    • the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker

      Um, I just tried off the top of my head http://mybigfatass.com/ [mybigfatass.com] . Yup, it exists and has only 1 working internal link. However it does link to slashdot.

      Looks like somebody is parking their ass.

  • Open source spam! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hey, how about another campaign to try to get spammers to use more open source software? Just because their business is of NEGATIVE VALUE as it POLLUTES THE NETWORK doesn't mean it shouldn't be endorsed by the free software community.

  • Wasting time? I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:00AM (#15147458)
    Every time Microsoft gains ground, they drive that point home with advertising campaigns and news releases. This adds to consumer confidence for their products. If IIS is serving on more than 50% of all websites, there must be something to it. Or so the logic goes.

    So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins? Do you really think anyone besides you is looking at the realities of webserving? Or is your manager going to buy into the press release hype and make IT decisions for you to implement?

    It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache. If you're posting here on Slashdot, you're most likely not the guy who is signing the paychecks in your company, and since you're not that guy, you're beholden to his decisions. Better to cut MS off at the pass than to face them down once they've got their foot in the door.

    • Giving decent information would work better (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @07:12AM (#15147626) Journal

      It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.

      If it's so important to fight Microsoft's publicity machine, why not simply discredit it? Sure, it's hard to get through to some people, and some will never get the message. If you just try to mislead them further, though, you're not getting through to them at all, and those people will just go scurrying back to Microsoft again after its next media release.

      A good way to start would be to compile some real information that's backed up by verifiable and reputable citations, clearly and concisely demonstrating that Microsoft's claimed advantage is due to a small number of large companies that use IIS to host vast numbers of identical, useless parked websites that contain no information. After this, it might be useful to compile and present additional information that shows the real distribution between Apache, IIS, and whatever else, based on a clearly stated and reasonable definition of what makes a useful production website. ... and if you happen to go this far, make it look more reputable than Microsoft's arguably baseless claims.

      Throw it together on a straightforward, direct-to-the-point website that gives Microsoft credit where it's due, but explains clearly where and why credit isn't due. Provide the information so that people can easily be referred to it, and it'd be much more helpful than trying to beat Microsoft at it's own spin and misleading of the consumer.

      If there's a weakness in Microsoft's marketing techniques, it's not that someone else can out-market them by providing even more fluff. The biggest weakness is that Microsoft's claims often don't really have any substance. If it's important to you to stop Microsoft from misleading consumers, you should really start by pointing out to them that they're being misled.

      I have a lot of respect for what Bruce Perens has done in the past and the stances that he's taken on issues, but I don't really understand this one at all.

      • I've done a lot to discredit Microsoft's publicity ploys in the press. If you'd like to start a "Get The Facts about The Facts" :-) site, that might help too. This only took me one day to hack up, I am back to work on other stuff.

        Bruce

        • This only took me one day to hack up, I am back to work on other stuff.

          And thanks for doing it. I don't think it's a bad thing to offer a service where people can park their domains, although personally I prefer that people only own the domains with a good reason besides squatting.

          The main problem that I guess I have is that a major claimed reason for this (as stated quite clearly in paragraph 2 [opensourceparking.com]) seems to be to skew Netcraft's statistics. If people choose to park their domains on an OSS system, and

          • Mike,

            From my perspective, Microsoft has done exactly what you are bothered by: they paid someone to skew netcraft's statistics. Apache enjoyed a large number of parked sites because it was technically best. GoDaddy did not switch off of Apache for technical reasons - nobody makes a press release about a server change unless they've been paid to do that.

            Netcraft saw what was going on and featured it in their April report. They did not choose to change the way they report parked sites.

            I'm just trying to put

    • So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins?

      Actually, I couldn't care less. If a bunch of idiots want to use Microsoft products because they have a higher share of the parked domain market, it doesn't bother me.

      It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.

      The government isn't going to outlaw Apache just because of Netcraft. They haven't even taken away my "freedom to choose FreeBSD", and we all kn

  • Fundamental Flaw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 6031769 ( 829845 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:04AM (#15147467) Homepage Journal
    The real problem with this plan (idealogical arguments aside) is that the vast majority of those who will bother to switch will naturally be the open source advocates. These are the ones who are most likely to be running an open-source web server on an open-source OS anyway, so the stats will hardly be shifted at all.

  • Netcraft is an indicator, not an objective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:07AM (#15147474) Journal
    Symptoms are information. Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server? Can something be done about it? Those are IMHO the questions.

    If the Netcraft survey is clouded by artificial parking, then the survey loses utility (assuming it has any in the first place, as the domain parking numbers make seeing usage statistics difficult). You can correct with Photoshop your bank account receipt, and that won't make you any richer.

    • You can correct with Photoshop your bank account receipt, and that won't make you any richer.

      But if you use GIMP you get richer! (by the price of photoshop)
    • Symptoms are information. Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server? Can something be done about it? Those are IMHO the questions.

      Because Microsoft gave them a lot of money. Maybe that's what the FLOSS community needs. A lot of money...

      • Why did "Go Daddy" change from Linux to Windows Server?

        Because Microsoft gave them a lot of money.

        If that's true you'd have to ask about Microsoft motives. If they think that altering the Netcraft survey will help them selling its software to clueless CIOs, perhaps then the OSS community can try to play the same game, and then Bruce Perens had a good idea. On the other side, as there is little money involved in selling Apache, perhaps Microsoft's goals and those of the OSS community aren't the same, and we
        • we should try to "market" to CIOs that can look further than a glossy brochure.

          Sure. But we should market to the other guys too.

          One of the biggest lessons we need to learn as a community is toleration for people who do not think like us and willingness to meet them half-way and lead them gently to our way of thinking. Everybody wins if we can just make ourselves be willing to do that.

          We need a big healthy business user community simply to protect Free Software from all of the nasty things that the other

  • When I first saw this (Score:4, Funny)

    by my $anity 0 ( 917519 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:12AM (#15147487)
    I first thought: You have a large field, paved with asphalt. There are cans of paint all around. You park your car, and paint the lines around it.

  • On Netcraft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by natrius ( 642724 ) <niran@niEINSTEINran.org minus physicist> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:23AM (#15147510) Homepage
    Netcraft's job is to be the foremost provider of information about what's running the Internet. Anyone who takes the time to actually read what the numbers say will realize that what Netcraft paints as a huge shift is actually a fairly insignificant change. How many servers does it actually take to run all those parked domain names with almost the exact same content? If you look at the data provided on the same page [netcraft.com] about active sites, you'll see that Apache only dropped 2.32%, while Microsoft gained only 0.92%. Frontloading articles with dubious data while hiding the relevant numbers deep in their charts is extremely misleading and only serves to tarnish Netcraft's reputation. Netcraft's own report states that registrars have a disproportionate influence in market share numbers measured in this way, so what exactly is the value of the data other than to mislead?

    Is BSD really dying?

  • A more elegant solution perhaps? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by samj ( 115984 ) * <samj@samj.net> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:25AM (#15147519) Homepage
    Convince Netcraft that parked domains are irrelevant and have them identify the bulk of the parked domains and remove them from the statistics.
    • Please mod parent up.

      I agree. Since parked domains can skew the results of the Netcraft survey (read: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics), removing them would certainly generate a more 'accurate' view of usage.

      As a concession, I would think that Netcraft should subsequently generate a comparative report of parked vs active domains. Better still, a separate series of reports that focus soley on parked domains.

    • Actually, there is a solution the parking sites can implement. Return the usual page, and status 404 which is the "no such page" code. Browsers would display the page. But the status code would clue in the search engines, maybe netcraft, and perhaps some browsers. It might not be a good idea to do unless everybody agrees to do it, because the folks who return 200 would still be counted in netcraft, etc. Perhaps it would be better to make an RFC establishing a new 4XX status code for "parked site". Then, peo
      • Then, people who did not use it would not be standards compliant...
        People who use IIS are already noncompliant. That doesn't seem to carry any weight with PHBs, who assume that MS software is by definition, compliant with MS. (Never mind that from a technical standpoint, MS software is incompatible with other MS software at least as often as FLOSS is)
  • So where's the "OpenSourceParking Girl"?

  • Dumbest Idea Ever (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:29AM (#15147532)
    I think it's pretty clear that this is perhaps the dumbest idea that has ever been put forward by anyone, ever. I would be a little ashamed to have mentioned it as an idea to some reporter, a little bit more ashamed to have actually coded something to do it, and finally I wouldn't ever even consider wasting thousands of people's time by putting it up as a news story.

    First of all, if Apache is at the top of the Netcraft survey *because* of domain parking, why would any "open source advocate" draw attention to this fact by staging some sort of war to see who can get the most unused domains to show a useless page with AdSense links on it? The massive disaster that is ICANN's UDRP requiring everyone to have some horrible "under construction" web site is not a reason to choose a web server; and the people who would choose a web server by raw numbers are probably too dumb to do even that much research.

    Second of all, why would anyone attempt to remedy the problem by asking open source users who are almost certainly already using Apache if they have a domain in the first place to park their unused domains at an Apache parking service? What? Furthermore, it's not like real people are parking huge numbers of empty domains, it's resellers who are looking to auction off single dictionary words in the .com TLD. Duh.

  • I park domains . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shohat ( 959481 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @06:32AM (#15147540) Homepage
    I own around 70 domains , many of which are parked through Sedo [sedo.co.uk] because many of the domains are for sale . Frankly speaking , parking is one of the most idiotic and pointless services on the internet .
    In an ideal world , a person that parks a domain name without stating explicitly why it isn't used but parked(like me) , should get a refund and the domain should be taken away , just in case someone actually wants to use it . This is my honest opinion . I get barely 3$ a month from accidental traffic and clicks and once in a while a domain gets sold to a person , for no less than x500 the price I paid .
    The only upside of a parked domain is that it gives even more (usually cheaper) advertising space for merchants , and since parked domain traffic usually comes from people that just type a meaningful domain name ( Old Sites [oldsites.com] for instance )into their Address bar, these are usually very targeted visitors .
    But still ,I dont see a reason for OS devs to take any pride in providing the platform for Domain Parking .

    • Re:I park domains . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert@@@chromablue...net> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @07:23AM (#15147651)
      In other words, you're a domain squatter. I don't think many people would have much sympathy for you not reaping in a five digit income due to ads on your parked domains.
      • Ex-fucking-actly . And I dont think that the OS community should go out if its way to get " The Leading domain squatting Platform" badge .
        Just to clarify - this isn't what I do for a living . I just do it =) .
        • I own 80 domains. I don't have them to squat on them and sell - although I did try to auction one recently that had outlived its intended use. I have them because if I don't buy and hold them for a use I might not get to for a year or two, somebody else might lock them up forever. I'm sorry it's a zero-sum game, but I didn't make it that way and I don't know how to fix it.

          Bruce

  • These are fucking parked domains, as far as anyone is concerned, they can be hosted on MacOS9.
  • And the new GNU/Roadrage operating system, and – wait, never mind...

  • Godaddy fails my hosting prerequisite test (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GoatMonkey2112 ( 875417 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @07:37AM (#15147683)
    I would like to congratulate godaddy.com on their fantastic new parked domain name "turbocow.com".

    In order to test the trustworthyness of a potential new web host for my site I put that domain name in my shopping cart then cancelled the order. The next day I went back and the domain name was parked.

    So, congratulation to godaddy on their fantastic new parked domain name and the loss of a potential customer.

    • I wonder how many people doing that with similarly low-value names it would take to get them to stop. :-)
    • GoDaddy.com doesn't seem to have anything to do with turbocow.com. It's is registered through doteasy.com in British Columbia to:

      Messersmith, Terence
      P.O. Box 81024
      Burnaby, BC V5H 4K2
      Canada

      That said, I've often wondered if searching the status of a domain name on a registrar's site causes them to put it onto a list of domains that should be offered to potential customers who search something similar. Potentially, that could be a very profitable little venture.
    • I had the same thing happen to me. I was sooooo pissed off because I had considered buying the domain custombots.com at godaddy (added to cart) and stargate.com (added to cart). I came back the next day to purchase and it was taken. I talked to the stargate guys on web chat and spoke with their VP of sales. He swore up and down that they did not do that. And conjectured that maybe Verisign was selling the queries, because that is ultimately where the queries go. I didn't talk to the godaddy people, but it i
    • There have been many accounts of whois searches being spied on by godaddy and many other registrars.If you do not purchase the domain immediately some company will register it and offer to sell it to you at 10 times the normal price.

      Highly unethical but it is happening.A lot.
      I guess the best bet is using services like dnsstuff.com or doing it yourself through the command line.
    • After reading that about turbocow yesterday, I tried my own experiment: started registering a (pronounceable) gibberish domain name on Godaddy, then aborted the transaction before paying the registration fee. Today I checked back and the domain name is still available. Call me skeptical.
  • This is horribly counterproductive for the open-source movement. Consider how this campaign will appear to the media. All that is certain is that stats for Apache hosting will be artificially high because of this campaign. And moreover, the article presents no hard evidence that MS is carrying out any manipulation themselves.
  • is available again...

  • What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @08:19AM (#15147817) Journal
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this a dumb thing to do? "Oh noes! Windows got 5% more market share in the 'not actually hosting a website' demographic!"

    I can't help but wonder if, by choosing battles like this one, the OSS community as a whole is doomed to fail against microsoft; an enemy who often establishes victory first, then fights the appropriate battles.
  • For some reason I'm reminded by this piece of dialogue from Office Space:

    Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
    Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
    Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
  • But my domain hoster charges me to change the NS records... of course this may lead to the development of something different altogether.. an opensource and free domain registrar. My current registrar allows me to change everything but the NS records (A,AAA,CNAME,MX) myself at no charge (except the few bucks anually) but of course this service could be provided by a community supported organization, goodness gracious that would put a dent in the usage statistics, Mr Perens! It might stop some of the more ir
  • I have a couple of domains that I registered through GoDaddy that are not currently in use. They defaulted to using GoDaddy's parking scheme but with this announcement I now have a Linux based place to point them to.
  • There's a theory going that parked domains are the best use for an IIS server.

    If you want to serve actual content, it makes a lot more sense to pick a server that's simple to set up and run, and that isn't subject to all the malware that infects Microsoft products. But if your PHB insists on using IIS, there might be a few things that it's good for.

  • It's ironic that he's registered his domain with Wild West Domains, a Go Daddy reseller.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close