Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'

timothy posted about 11 years ago | from the problem-with-public-versus-private dept.

The Internet 507

simeonbeta2 writes "Mark McLaughlin, Senior VP at Verisign, has an editorial up on news.com. McLaughlin casts the debate over sitefinder in terms of 'innovation' versus the status quo and threatens that stifling 'innovation' will lead to a weaker internet." There's more -- read on below.

psimeonbeta2 continues:"Additionally (shades of Darl) he suggests that an anti-capitalism animus is behind the resistance to sitefinder. This despite the known problems that sitefinder caused and despite the fact that breaking the DNS standards may have constituted a breach of contract on Verisign's part. Resistance, he concludes, must be due to some sort of techno-religious fervor.

While Verisign's chutzpah certainly doesn't rise to fiaSCO levels, I find the similar tones in spinning the issues at hand to be truly disturbing. Not only did Verisign screw us by changing how the internet works at a fundamental level, now they purport to be irritated that we didn't thank them for the favor! At least in this case the good guys(cherish this moment, ICANN!) won."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mark should... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149560)

..have his lower horn removed.

Who sucks the nuts of life?.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149579)

YOU SUCK teh nutz of liaf!

FIRST FIRST FIRST FIRST

post post post post

first first first first

post post post post

I kind of like SiteFinder (0, Flamebait)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | about 11 years ago | (#7149566)

Sometimes I misspell URLs and I actually *like* having a service that attempts to find the site I'm looking for.

I'm not saying that people who are against it are anti-capitalist or anything, but they certainly are a bunch of knee-jerk reactionists.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (5, Insightful)

g0at (135364) | about 11 years ago | (#7149587)

Congratulations.

On the other hand, some of us like having the choice to let the user-agent do that when NXDOMAIN is returned, which uh, it never is with Sitefinder.

(I mean, I like root beer. Therefore, I think that all fast food chains should make it the default, and not provide user choice... after all, I like it.)

-ben

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (1, Redundant)

interiot (50685) | about 11 years ago | (#7149653)

I like wood. It can be used in innovative ways. Therefore, I believe everything (cars, spaceships, skyscrapers....) should be built with it. If I were a government-granted monopoly with the power to mandage use of wood, I'd do exactly that. Surethere'd be technical problems here and there, but as long as the engineers talked it out with me, everything would be fine.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149674)

I like wood

Taco? Is that you?

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (4, Interesting)

doon (23278) | about 11 years ago | (#7149680)

or even better some of us don't like to have to rewrite tons of scripts that use the DNS system for something besides the web. I mean there is more to the internet then just the World Wide Waste :). When Verisign decided it would do this, I noticed all my domain checking scripts stopped returning NXDOMAINS, and had to be hacked real quick to look for the magic site finder ip, and then before that wonderful Bind patch, had to worry that they would change the magic ip thus breaking my scripts again.

Then to add salt to my wounds, they send me an e-mail saying that my domain name is expired and I should call a friendly Verisign scumbag^H^H^H^H^H^Halesperson to help get my domain back. This was the last domain I had registered on them, and it was moved to OpenSRS 5 months ago. I don't see how someone this incompentant and this greedy should be put in charge of something this important.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149589)

Hey McLaughlin,
Hows it been? I didn't know you read slashdot

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (1)

realdpk (116490) | about 11 years ago | (#7149590)

Bookmarks are pretty sweet. Almost every modern browser supports them, I think they even have it in Netscape 2.0. Did the throbbing M have 'em? I forget.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149634)

You have the entire Internet bookmarked so you never need to type in a URL?

That's so cool!

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (2, Funny)

IANAAC (692242) | about 11 years ago | (#7149747)

For that I have google, which will then happily keep track of everywhere I've visited.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (1)

morcego (260031) | about 11 years ago | (#7149758)

Actually, and someone please correct it I'm wrong, I do remember Mosaic having bookmarks.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (1)

pantherace (165052) | about 11 years ago | (#7149598)

Then use IE (auto redirect to MSN search, unless disabled)

personally, I just autocomplete (have to type it right the first time, and the first couple of letters...I know it's hard), or have it bookmarked...

I will agree that some of this was knee-jerk, but implementing this for everyone without anyone else's input was definatly the wrong way to go about it.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (3, Informative)

Kufat (563166) | about 11 years ago | (#7149612)

Internet Explorer can do that with MSN search and it usually works well enough. (Too bad you can't use google instead...or can you? I don't have their toolbar since I don't use IE.)
Site Finder, however, takes EVERY invalid domain request from every kind of program on every platform, and breaks the DNS standard, with screwing over the other .com registrars as an added bonus.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (1)

m0rph3us0 (549631) | about 11 years ago | (#7149657)

It used to be easy but not it requires a registry change. But it certainly works with google.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (3, Informative)

David M. Andersen (711958) | about 11 years ago | (#7149742)

You can use google, believe it or not. Search sidebar (Ctrl-E), Customize (Alt-Z or toolbar option on top of search sidebar), Autosearch Settings.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (5, Informative)

Jonathunder (105885) | about 11 years ago | (#7149621)

Sometimes I misspell URLs and I actually *like* having a service that attempts to find the site I'm looking for.

So set your browser to do that. Most of the popular browsers will, and you can even chose your search engine.

No need to force that behaivior on every user of every Internet service. The Internet is not (just) the web.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149684)

I like it when you wear a funnel through which my fist can fit. That way, when I'm off in punching you, my fist still arives at the target.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 11 years ago | (#7149734)

Uh ... no. Verisign altered and partially busted a rather critical piece of Internet infrastructure and caused significant problems. The Sitefinder aspect of their "innovation" was only part of it. Billions of lines of code out in the world were written to function with DNS servers that behave in a certain way, to a particular well-defined specification. Verisign altered they way the root servers respond to DNS requests, and they did it unilaterally, without warning, and for profit. That is precisely the kind of mentality we do not want in an entity that maintains systems and equipment that we all depend on.

Suppose your power company decided, all on its own, without consulting you or anyone else, that they were only going to supply 90 VAC to your home or office instead of the usual 120. Some pieces of equipment would work fine, others would simply fail, or even destroy themselves. You would probably not have any idea what the hell was happening. That's pretty much what Verisign did to programs that interact with .COM and .NET domains. There are other ways of providing SiteFinder-like capability with causing worldwide disruption, and if Versign is unable to handle their assigned responsibility it should be given to someone who can.

What Verisign did rocks the foundation of trust that other nations have in America's ability to operate such globally important services. Verisign's upper management needs an attitude re-adjustment, or better yet complete replacement with more ethical businessmen.

Re:I kind of like SiteFinder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149756)

Lots of bluster in that post, but not much substance.

Yes, there's now no longer any bad domain names because they all resolve to either an existing domain or Verisign. And this hurts YOU how?

Oh, it doesn't match the useless NXDOMAIN spec, so it's bad. Gotcha. That's not knee-jerk at all.

Utter Crap (5, Insightful)

l810c (551591) | about 11 years ago | (#7149567)

He makes this sound like the entire future of the Internet hangs in balance on this decision. Like routing all typos to Verisign is some critically important new technology.

If someone types in a bad domain name, they should get a message that states just that. I don't know if there are any statistics on this, but for me 9 times out of 10 it is a typo. If not, then you can go to the search engine of Your Choice and search for the name.

The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Internet
Should Read
The decisions made over the next months and years will determine the future growth and vitality of the Verisign.

Re:Utter Crap (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149593)

If someone types in a bad domain name, they should be called a moron. Man, I hate it when people make mistakes. We should expect better in this country of our citizens. Any American who abuses our Internet by making typos should have their self-esteem damaged.

Re:Utter Crap (2)

antimith (683310) | about 11 years ago | (#7149656)

Indeed, all unused names Must belong to verisign!

Now, If you do not imediately grant me commercial control of all unused channel numbers on cable, all ungranted patents and all unused snazzy product names, the world will explode.

Re:Utter Crap (3, Interesting)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 11 years ago | (#7149673)

tinfoil hat time for me: maybe they have a *use* for collecting all those typos? Just an idea...

what is it with these monopolies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149569)

Hello Verisign and Microsoft! Believe it or not SOME OF US DON'T WANT WHAT YOU OFFER!!! HELLO!!!

yes I know using so many caps is like yelling. sheesh.

Re:what is it with these monopolies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149585)

Then don't misspell URLs. How hard is that?

Re:what is it with these monopolies? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 11 years ago | (#7149753)

yes I know using so many caps is like yelling. sheesh.

S'okay ... it's what the rest of us feeling like doing anyway.

YOU'lL NEVER MAKE A NIGGER OUT OF ME! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149570)

my WHITE BLOOD is PURE, fuckers! It'll be a cold day in HELL before I become one of those FUCKING SHITSKINS! you hear me, FAGS? I"ll have you kn--- AUGGGGHHHHHHHH nooooo ownownfoa fo roajj BLAHhahhbababab ...... Muh dick, muh dick! yess massa! I he'p you wit the groceries!

(and with that the nigger rays were shot at the redneck, turning him into a filthy subhuman negroid)

His rational (2, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | about 11 years ago | (#7149574)

appears to be the same defense used by spammers.

Let someone else innovate (4, Insightful)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | about 11 years ago | (#7149575)

Let someone else "innovate"; someone not trusted to serve the .com/.net root zones without biased interest in the outcome of how it works.

Re:Let someone else innovate (4, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | about 11 years ago | (#7149683)

Or better, let Verisign innovate, but without the terrible encumbrance of having to administrate the .com/.net TLDs. Give that responsibility to another organization that can handle it.

Re:Let someone else innovate (2, Insightful)

Meshach (578918) | about 11 years ago | (#7149726)

I agree. This isn't innovation - it is stupid.

These comments are already full of analogies of how silly his point. When you act as a register or a controller over some major infastructure you have a responsibility to manage it in a fair and impartial way. If you don't no one will go to you for your services. Then you can no longer do business...

Innovation? (5, Insightful)

Texas Rose on Lava L (712928) | about 11 years ago | (#7149583)

Spammers do a lot of creative things to get their messages through. So, would it be "stifling innovation" to make spam illegal?

There's a difference between actual innovation that benefits society vs. people just finding a way to take advantage of the system.

Re:Innovation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149703)

Damn straight, people trying to benefit society don't spend money buying off politicians --- which is, as we know, the 'murican way. Verisign screwed the pooch by not patenting the idea first!

He is right! It is clearly innovation... (3, Funny)

Osrin (599427) | about 11 years ago | (#7149594)

... in the form that we have recently come to know it.

hmmmm (4, Funny)

the_other_one (178565) | about 11 years ago | (#7149597)

This sort of innovation followed by the "This will stifle innovation defense." must surely infringe on a Microsoft business process patent

I smell another lawsuit on the horizon.

Re:hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149633)

Can we please have just one discussion where someone doesn't drag Microsoft into the fray when it has NOTHING to do with them?

Re:hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149662)

No!

Re:hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149692)

If Microsoft didn't fucking blow, people wouldn't pick on them. I'm so sorry you feel the need to defend the scum.

Re:hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149700)

SCO was already mentioned in the article. You know it was only a matter of time.

Innovative wildcards? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149601)

Why is * in bind so special? Here are some more 'innovative' wildcards: rm -rf /* (innovative on sco's lawyers machines... won't take much time at all to complete...) cat * > /dev/null (Zero loss compression of verisign's arguments...) and the best yet... cat * > /dev/sda (or /dev/hda) (Method of preserving the data, but making it useless - similar to press releases by verisign)

Re:Innovative wildcards? (1, Funny)

robochan (706488) | about 11 years ago | (#7149763)

I'd like to "innovate" the highway system so that everytime McLaughlin takes a wrong turn or misses an offramp, he ends up at my house and mows my lawn.

Re:Innovative wildcards? (2, Informative)

Alan Hicks (660661) | about 11 years ago | (#7149764)

rm -rf /*

Dock yourself one sys-admin point for unneccessary use of a wildcard.

lets think of it neutrally (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149602)

If we think of the SiteFinder plan neutrally, granted, Verisign is offending most internet users and probably scerwing up the internet. But we should also think in terms of the average internet user - which is Joe Click-a-mouse. The internet is not all about linux, unix, code etc. It is also about usability. And if we think in this fashion it appears plausible that, *i might be wrong*, sitefinder might help people find the site they want?

tell me, how else would they find what they want if they dont have a complete URL? Suppose you had a wrong URL or did not remember the right URL? How would you find out the right one? Its impossible without sitefinder.

Re:lets think of it neutrally (2, Informative)

gdarklighter (666840) | about 11 years ago | (#7149712)

It's called Google [google.com] .

MODS ON CRACK. PLS METAMOD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149760)

The post has a valid point. Which zealot modded it down? I thought this is a free speach site?

In other news (4, Funny)

El (94934) | about 11 years ago | (#7149606)

... street beggars have announced that the "innovation" of pointing loaded guns at the people they are asking for money greatly increases their profits. "Well, we the panhandling industry can't just remain static. They should be thanking us for innovating new sources of revenue" said one street bum as he was being arrested...

Re:In other news (1, Offtopic)

cgranade (702534) | about 11 years ago | (#7149632)

Why not? After all, Bush "innovated" with his electioneering techniques, and SCO "innovated" with their sue-your-own-customers-till-you-piss-'em-off-so-ba d-they'll-never-buy-from-you-again business model... not to mention RIAA's "innovation" with cutting back on individual rights, and MS's anti-capitalist "innovation."

Of course it was innovation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149607)

It was obviously innovation. Nobody had ever done it before, yes. (Sure there were wildcards in other TLDs, but they weren't trying to provide the service SiteFinder was.)

The thing is, not all innovation is good. In this case, VeriSign innovated, and most people didn't want their innovation.

If they like, they could provide the *exact* same innovation by distributing a fully opt-in browser add-on.

Shitefinder... (0, Troll)

nigels (264332) | about 11 years ago | (#7149609)

The Verisign Business Model:

Embrace, extend, extinguish...

geez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149610)

I simply cannot beleive his ignorance... You know he is just being a PR shill, and I can't beleive CNET put him up... Petition time for cnet?

Who cares about this guys perspective on anything?

Don't forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149615)

The same people rooted for SiteFinder removal that think that stealing SCO's property is perfectly legal.

Innovate? Innovate? (5, Funny)

KevinMS (209602) | about 11 years ago | (#7149617)



I just innovated 4 of my domains over to
another registrar.

Look at it from both sides... (4, Insightful)

thecampbeln (457432) | about 11 years ago | (#7149618)

Looking at SiteFinder from the viewpoint of a "stupid user", it's pretty damned neat! I mean, it's kinda like calling the wrong 800 number and the person who answers says "Oh this happens all the time, the number you actually want is...". This is a nice feature!

Now looking at Sitefinder from the technical perspective, it's a scary ass "development". As once again, calling the wrong 800 number, the person could say "Oh this happens all the time, but I know a better place get (insert product/service here)! Try calling...", here in lies the devil!

It would be nice to have the feature in the first instance, but we all know that it will end up being served as in the second instance (besides all the anti-SPAM issues, et la). <rant>Since the CEOs of now are children of the 80's, everything always boils down to the all mighty $</rant>. BUT... is there any way that this idea could be put to good use?

Re:Look at it from both sides... (-1, Flamebait)

jhunsake (81920) | about 11 years ago | (#7149658)

You're a fucking idiot. Such services can be offered without the change they made.

Re:Look at it from both sides... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149718)

Calling someone a fucking idiot after they ask a well phrased question gets you modded to a score of 2? Wow.

You sir are a god damn mother fucking worthless piece of shit whom should burn in hell.
Score 5 here I come.

Re:Look at it from both sides... (1)

thecampbeln (457432) | about 11 years ago | (#7149720)

RMFP (Read My Fucking Post) - BUT... is there any way that this idea could be put to good use?.

Granted, this COULD be taken as "this" refers to wilding-carding .com/.net, but it does not. "this", in this case refers to the idea of redirecting a user when a typo is made, nutin else Sparky.

Re:Look at it from both sides... (2, Insightful)

jackb_guppy (204733) | about 11 years ago | (#7149678)

But that same stupid user is already using MS, that does it for them.

So back to the base question: "Why?"

Answer more money into the Versign pockets.

Sitefinder not innovative (3, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 11 years ago | (#7149743)

Web Browsers have been doing this for non-existant domains ages.

The web browser is the right place to implement such a feature. Providing extended functionality to the user is the role of the user agent.

Implementing it all the way down in DNS is just bonkers.

Innovations that break things are not innovations (1, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 11 years ago | (#7149620)

Since the Site finder breaks some anti-spam tools and makes web admins jobs more difficult due to every address having an IP address returned it cannot be considered an "innovation" a new type of computer that ran a little faster but messes with the voltage on the power line so that other devices would'nt work right wouldn't be an innovation, it would be a piece of crap, as is site finder

Real innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149623)

might be everyone deciding to play their own top level domain registrar with some community integration/collaboration. Yeah things would be pretty much broken all the time, but ... hmm so I guess innovation can suck it.

No technical knowledge? (1)

interiot (50685) | about 11 years ago | (#7149624)

First he continues the Web==Internet BS, then he strongly implies that Verision Sitefinder's drawbacks had a technical solution other than complete negation of what they'd done. If they think there's a technical alternative to making Sitefinder useful and only show up for WWW users, suggest it. I've heard of no such thing.

Re:No technical knowledge? (1)

Trepalium (109107) | about 11 years ago | (#7149694)

Oh, quite easy. Instead of modifying DNS, you could always just modify the WEB BROWSERS, or go through a web proxy server that would do this for you.

Re:No technical knowledge? (1)

pla (258480) | about 11 years ago | (#7149709)

then he strongly implies that Verision Sitefinder's drawbacks had a technical solution other than complete negation of what they'd done.

Well, an alternative technical solution does exist, it just wouldn't put money in Verisign's pockets...

Instead of returning basically an ad, they could instead compare the result against a table of, say, the top 1000 domains to see if they have a close match (such as off by one character). If so, return that as a likely misspelling.

This would solve two problems with one solution - It would undo most of the damage caused by resolving everything to sitefinder, and it would make squatting on anything currently popular quite a lot more difficult.

Re:No technical knowledge? (1)

interiot (50685) | about 11 years ago | (#7149738)

Doing this sort of funky stuff at the DNS level would still break things.

-interiot@am4z0n.com

The Internet Will Break... (5, Insightful)

FsG (648587) | about 11 years ago | (#7149626)

ICANN appears to have bought into claims that the Internet has broken or will break. Anyone who has used it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false.

Bullshit. This is clearly written from the perspective of the user, who will click the pretty buttons while completely unaware of what's going on in the background. Instead of asking "anyone who has used it," why not ask a DNS admin or someone who is similarly qualified to make a decision on this point? Those people will tell you loud and clear that this thing indeed caused serious problems.

one problem (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 11 years ago | (#7149627)

the problem is versign signed up for the status quo.. its called an internet standard!

don't like the standard, than stand down as regsitrar and start your own internet!

Who's going to be the first to hack it? (2, Interesting)

the man with the pla (710711) | about 11 years ago | (#7149628)

Starting nmap 3.28 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-09-15 06:36 PDT
Host sitefinder.verisign.com (12.158.80.10) appears to be up ... good.
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against sitefinder.verisign.com (12.158.80.10) at 06 :36
Adding open port 80/tcp
The SYN Stealth Scan took 94 seconds to scan 1643 ports.
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 36304 is closed and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 43206 is closed and neither are firewalled
For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 44655 is closed and neither are firewalled
Interesting ports on sitefinder.verisign.com (12.158.80.10):
(The 1642 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
Port State Service
80/tcp open http
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.28%P=i386-portbld-freebsd5 .1%D=9/15%Time=3F65C0E9%O=80%C=-1)
TSeq(Class=TR% IPID=Z%TS=U)
T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=16A0%ACK=S++%Flags= AS%Ops=MNNTNW)
T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=16D0%ACK=S++%Flag s=AS%Ops=MNW)
T2(Resp=N)
T3(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=16D0%A CK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNW)
T4(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=0%ACK=O %Flags=R%Ops=)
T5(Resp=N)
T6(Resp=N)
T7(Resp=N)
PU(Resp=N)

TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=truly random
Difficulty=9999999 (Good luck!)
TCP ISN Seq. Numbers: 673A4C36 652AB817 BBE534C3 685BB54A
IPID Sequence Generation: All zeros

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 137.552 seconds

service and profit (3, Insightful)

maliabu (665176) | about 11 years ago | (#7149631)

i think at least some internet users will find Site Finder a good service, especially when you're not too sure about a URL, or mistyped one.

the annoying part is the opportunity for verisign to make a good profit out of this as there are quoted millions of mistyped URLs daily.

however who wants/can to provide a sevice (which costs money) for free? or even, who wants to not make a profit when there is profit to be made?

anyway, if site finder is associated with a neutral web directory like dmoz.org, it might be a different story.

Re:service and profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149699)

Anyone stupid enough to not know how to find a website if its not found will be using IE which redirects not found domains to MSN.com

Everyone else uses Mozilla (or in my case Opera)

there is no purpose for sitefinder unless its an optional service that end users choose to use.

Re:service and profit (1)

Trepalium (109107) | about 11 years ago | (#7149736)

Either way, there are less intrusive ways of doing this. HTTP proxies are one way of doing it, as they can return anything they want when they get a DNS error. Modifications to a web browser are another option (I believe Internet Explorer already does this).

"End to end" was the innovation. (4, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 11 years ago | (#7149636)

There's nothing innovative about having the network do centralized processing, and perform those specific functions that Ma Bell or Verisign or whomever thinks it can market and charge money for.

What was innovative was the concept of a network that just provided connectivity, and allowed the users at the network termini to provide the innovation.

To call SiteFinder innovative is like cutting the wings off an airplane and saying that you've created an innovative new form of ground transportation.

Exploitation of... (1)

globalar (669767) | about 11 years ago | (#7149640)

Trust and responsibility is nothing new, he's right.

A quote from the article:

"That error page can lead to a dead end, with no options on how to get to where you tried to go."

Perhaps Mr. McLaughlin should try something like Google, where a service is performed at your request, not the advertiser's/coporations insistence.

NEED A DOG OR CAT SITTER? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149643)

NEED A DOG OR CAT SITTER?

My name is Melisa. I am a responsible 20 year old, looking for a job pet sitting. I have had a cat for about 17 years and a dog for almost 15 years. I love animals and don't like to see them left alone for long hours. On weekdays I can stop in early in the morning and feed and play with your pet. I can also stop and play with your pet around 3:00 p.m. Prices range from $5 to $20 a day, depending on how long visits are and the number of animals. If you are interested please call (800) 759-0700 and ask to speak to Melisa about your belief.

Re:NEED A DOG OR CAT SITTER? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149706)

Would you be available to take care of my pet tiger for me while I'm in the hospital?

-- Roy Horn

Too easy. (1, Funny)

Asprin (545477) | about 11 years ago | (#7149644)


I dub thee....

... Mark Mc-Laugh-In

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

"Innovation" (4, Funny)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 11 years ago | (#7149647)

"You keep using that word. I believe it does not mean what you think it does." -- The Princess Bride

Good Fertilizer (1)

FsG (648587) | about 11 years ago | (#7149648)

*takes article, rips into small pieces, spreads over lawn*

Excellent! Normally I'd have to pay top dollar for such high-grade bullshit.

Sitefinder itself is anti-capitalist (2, Insightful)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 11 years ago | (#7149649)

The whole idea of sitefinder is "implemented" by other companies, and this destroys all of the "competition", so how are we the anti-capitalist saying others should be able to handle DNS errors their own way, rather than have them shove their stuff down our throats using somthing that goes against RFC, they are one of the most important companies to run the net, and they don't obide basic RFC, I think the gov't should step in and take away their .com and .net privledges away and give them to someone we can trust...

niggers aren't people (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149652)

... so why did we give them rights?

-- A proud KDE user (KKK fetish fuck)

ROMANS ARE GODS

COWS R SEXY

(+5 Insightful, +5 The Truth, +5 Niggersense)

Standard are there for a reason (5, Insightful)

rborek (563153) | about 11 years ago | (#7149655)

They exploited a known feature in the DNS system, and abused their monopoly. There's no innovation there - just an abuse of a government-granted monopoly position. Had they actually proposed something innovative, and proposed it as an RFC (even if it was an Informational RFC), then maybe things would be different. Instead, they decide to do something that was not contemplated by the IAB for the standard. The Internet is built on standards - and sometimes standards can be slow to change because of the sheer number of different systems involved. You can't expect things like DNS standards to change overnight.

His stance (0, Flamebait)

DJ Rubbie (621940) | about 11 years ago | (#7149659)

His stance is just like those record houses who try to "innovate" on the CD standards to prevent "piracy". Altering the base DNS entries for their own gain and claim it dealt no harm is just like them making a CD-like disk that breaks the CD standards and claiming it to be a CD. Result of Verisign's arrogance caused broken spam filters and programs, so did the "broken" CD's damaged various computer systems (most notibly the Mac's).

He might have a skinny, crippled leg to stand on (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | about 11 years ago | (#7149663)

IF Verisign had vetted this idea first. Gotten feedback. Instead, their "innovation" was shoved down all our throats, with no care given to any ill-effects it might cause.

TRUE dns/httpd innovation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149666)

Youaremyfriend.com [youaremyfriend.com] - displays a shockwave animation for Firstname.Lastname.youaremyfriend.com

This is what RFCs are for. (1)

Vultan (468899) | about 11 years ago | (#7149667)

He wants to innovate? Submit an RFC (Request For Comment). Let the community decide whether or not this innovation is good for the Internet.

Innovation? No, world's second oldest profession (5, Insightful)

morelife (213920) | about 11 years ago | (#7149668)

Dude, abuse of power, greed, and lying to the public are not exactly "innovation". Can we please have our "weaker" Internet back? Uh, thank you.

Uhh... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149675)

Are we talking about a means to a monopolistic "sitefinder" that steals legitimate users from the sites they wanted to go from in an effort to make money, or are we talking about the internet being destroyed due to lack of innovation, ...and the something about the discovery of the west continents? I fail to see how one can link an advertising based search engine to Christopher Columbus... I guess he's been talking to Darl McBride a lot as of late...

Innovation (1)

deltagreen (522610) | about 11 years ago | (#7149676)

Claiming critics of Verisign are stifling innvation is ridiculous. If the internet is going to work, it needs to use open standards that everyone agrees on. The problem is that Verisign, as a commercial company, implemented their own implementation on a whim! If they thought this was such a good, altruistic idea, why don't they try submitting it as a standard for the internet and get it peer-reviewed instead?

Re:Innovation (2, Insightful)

doon (23278) | about 11 years ago | (#7149698)

why don't they try submitting it as a standard for the internet and get it peer-reviewed instead?

Simple, they knew the stink it would cause. It is the same tatic I have used with my wife when wanting a new toy -- It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

At least come up with a legitimate argument... (1)

BlabberMouth (672282) | about 11 years ago | (#7149686)

inovation is a joke. Nobody buys that. I'd like to see him explain exactly why Verisign should own the rights to the "bad domain" page. Obviously he can't, thus the "inovation" argument. If he could explain how the user gets the slightest bit of value out of this, I'll eat my underwear.

Wrong place (4, Insightful)

countach (534280) | about 11 years ago | (#7149689)

The problem is not that something like sitefinder isn't a good idea. The problem is that putting it in the root name servers is the wrong place for it. Something like a browser plugin or browser feature is the correct place for it. Users can have the feature, and it may even be good, but this is the dead wrong way to implement it.

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149691)

we welcome our internet overlords.

Along that line of thinking then... (1)

The Ancients (626689) | about 11 years ago | (#7149695)

Jack the Ripper must have been innovative too.

As were the first spammers.

As would have been the inventors of anthrax.

Being first doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing however...

reducing choice != inovative (1)

jkcity (577735) | about 11 years ago | (#7149701)

there is not much difference between versigns service and internet explorer forwarding you to msn search, except you can choose not to have internet explorer do that, with versign you can't.

I would'nt exactly call reducing choice inovative at all.

oh dear (1)

cca93014 (466820) | about 11 years ago | (#7149729)

Verisign clearly want to innovate so much that their homepage contains 87 HTML errors, check the w3c validator [w3.org] , in less than 300 lines of code.

That has to be some sort of innovation record!

So now whenever we have a problem with ICANN... (1)

CatPieMan (460995) | about 11 years ago | (#7149741)

...they can just remind us that they are the ones who got rid of sitefinder and we should shutup that they just broke everything else.

But, the internet is dying, right?

-CPM

Invention vs. Innovation (3, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 11 years ago | (#7149754)

Cringley said it best, in his article Why Business Isn't as Fun as it Used to be [pbs.org] where he writes on innovation vs invention.

' But there is another issue here, one that is hardly ever mentioned and that's the coining of the term "innovation." This word, which was hardly used at all until two or three years ago, feels to me like a propaganda campaign and a successful one at that, dominating discussion in the computer industry. I think Microsoft did this intentionally, for they are the ones who seem to continually use the word. But what does it mean? And how is it different from what we might have said before? I think the word they are replacing is "invention." '

Perhaps Verisign will help the world see through this concept of "innovation" and let us get back to inventing things.

Innovation, like MIcrosoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7149757)

Let's see.. Who else abuses the word "innovation" to pretend that their underhanded manuvers are a good thing?

Where should innovation be done? (3, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | about 11 years ago | (#7149765)

Personally, I think this kind of innovation is a Good Thing. However, the innovation should be done at the application level, not at the infrastructure level. Let applications determine how to handle the case where a DNS query returns NXDOMAIN. But don't break the infrastructure and force all applications to go south just because you want a web browser (1 port out of 65K) to handle DNS differently.

</rant>

bah.. (1)

Strych9 (126433) | about 11 years ago | (#7149766)

Good, I hope 'innovation' all over, such as the likes of Microsoft innovation, is stiffled. This way perhaps we can get back to 'invention' again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?