GoDaddy's move an ideological one

lars

Tue Apr 11 01:20:30 -0700 2006

manage

GoDaddy's move is most likely an ideological one. It is the same name service which locked out non-MSIE-users.

However, promulgation of the report seems to be based on ideology as well. As far as I can see, none of the articles based on the press release pointed out that as far as active sites and top domains go, MS has stayed flat. Apache did experience a dip in Feb to the benefit of "other", not MS, but is now on the rise again.

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

computersareevil

Tue Apr 11 07:33:08 -0700 2006

manage

I don't think it was ideological. GoDaddy's CEO is no Microsoft fanboy, but he is greedy (in a public-company way).  This is strictly a financial move. If you read around the web, Microsoft shows up at your door with a truck full of money and their best former used-car salesmen and apply the hardsell.  They play good-cop, bad-cop and beat you down while upping the money offered until you give in.  As the CEO of a public company, you would be legally liable if somebody offered you money to run their OS and you didn't take it.

ideology + bribe

lars

Tue Apr 11 07:47:03 -0700 2006

manage

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

GoDaddy's CEO has appeared in the past to be a Microsoft fanboy, I can't see anything having changed in that regard.

As the CEO of a public company, you would be legally liable if somebody offered you money to run their OS and you didn't take it.

Not always. However, in this case it's being used to serve up static HTML pages. Very little harm can be done in that limited scenario by using the offered insecure, innefficient, hard to maintain and over-priced software.

ideology + bribe

computersareevil

Tue Apr 11 08:32:18 -0700 2006

manage

Very little harm can be done in that limited scenario by using the offered insecure, innefficient, hard to maintain and over-priced software.

Hey, I'm with you, but I think MS not only gave the OS to them, but backed a truck full of money up to GoDaddy's dock too. So to revise what I said, the CEO of a public company would be in deep doo-doo if he refused a truck full of money for something that was unlikely to cause any short-term harm to the company. Wall Street frowns on long-term benefits and responsibility when it costs short-term profits.

ideology + bribe

Carl Skaggs

Tue Apr 18 08:26:55 -0700 2006

manage

GoDaddy is a private company, but they have plans of going public
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BBE70F068-321F-4777-8640-ECAACDBA077D%7D&source=blq%2Fyhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

Lindsey

Tue Apr 11 09:21:41 -0700 2006

manage

What?  You're in trouble for NOT taking bribes now?

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

Carson Chittom

Tue Apr 11 09:28:18 -0700 2006

manage

The CEO of a public company has a legal responsibility (in the US, at least) to his or her[1] shareholders to maintain and increase the value of their investments wherever possible. Such at least is my understanding.

Incidentally, I don't think it's "bribery" in a legal sense unless it involves someone in public office (though of course, similar actions may fall under other provisions).

[1] As an aside, the English language is in dire need of a gender-neutral pronoun. Unfortunately, all the alternatives (that I've heard) thus far suck, and I'm too much of a grammarian to use "they" in this sense in writing.

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

Phil Carmody

Tue Apr 18 07:26:40 -0700 2006

manage

Aside - use of singular 'they' predates the language you speak, and cannot reasonably be considered wrong (unless you're a 16th century Latin scholar trying to reverse engineer Italic grammar rules onto a Germanic language). Many of those who practically defined the modern language were users of the construction.

Back to main point - you're right, which is why google's "don't be evil" should be taken with a large pinch of salt nowadays. GoDaddy were strongly, and vociferously, in favour of linux hosting due to the cost benefits, but we now see that that cannot be relied on as a reason for them to stick with that solution. The bottom line is that you pretty much cannot trust any public limited company for anything apart from the very immediate short term.

It's no more bribery than any other palm-greasing, which permeates pretty much everywhere in business. (But yes, one could simply say "yes, it's bribery then".)

FatPhil

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

computersareevil

Tue Apr 11 09:31:55 -0700 2006

manage

What? You're in trouble for NOT taking bribes now?

Sadly, yes. If you are the CEO of a public company, your only legal responsibility is to deliver "value" (profit) to your stockholders. Customers and employees come a distant second and third. Therefor, when MS backs-up a truck full of money to your loading dock and accepting it won't materially harm the company, you have to accept it, or face the wrath of the law and stockholders.

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

samrobb

Tue Apr 11 12:54:47 -0700 2006

manage

    Customers and employees come a distant second and third.

"We need to make sure 'The customer is job three' never makes it into those flyers we send out."
    - http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20040128.html

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

bill_mcgonigle

Wed Apr 12 12:32:13 -0700 2006

manage

Therefor, when MS backs-up a truck full of money to your loading dock and accepting it won't materially harm the company, you have to accept it, or face the wrath of the law and stockholders.

It's a matter of judgement. If a big chunk of your users jump to opensourceparking.org because of the move, you're not obligated to do it anyway. Customers are expensive to acquire.

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

computersareevil

Wed Apr 12 13:12:09 -0700 2006

manage

It's a matter of judgement. If a big chunk of your users jump to opensourceparking.org because of the move, you're not obligated to do it anyway. Customers are expensive to acquire.

Right, which is why I said "accepting it won't materially harm the company". Losing a big chunk of customers would qualify as material harm, don't you think?

GoDaddy's move a *financial* one

bill_mcgonigle

Wed Apr 12 14:34:18 -0700 2006

manage

Right, my intent was to clarify and amplify your comment rather than to contradict it. :)

OpenSourceParking.com test

un1xl0ser

Tue Apr 11 13:15:48 -0700 2006

manage

If you want people to visit the site, you should put a link to it in the text somewhere. I can't highlight the post title (FireFox / Windows XP, so one has to type it in manually.

Great idea though. I will see what domains I can point there. Your in luck, because I don't know that many geeks who don't have at least a handfull of parked domains.

OpenSourceParking.com test

WeblionX

Tue Apr 11 16:36:38 -0700 2006

manage

Well, you can select it if you happen to land the cursor in the two or three pixel space to the left of it. But really, typing it in isn't that-- Oh, shiny!

OpenSourceParking.com test

mcrbids

Wed Apr 12 00:57:37 -0700 2006

manage

Bruce,

I have a number of domains that end up on my Apache/Centos4 server. Point any domain at my hosting server to get the same results - just set DNS CNAME to host.effortlessis.com, so that it follows my hosting if I move the server.

But from the standpoint of domain statistics, is there any advantage that you can see to hosting them on your domain name parking lot?

Do you promise to link to them, or submit them to Netcraft & Co or something?

OpenSourceParking.com test

un1xl0ser

Wed Apr 12 04:59:26 -0700 2006

manage

I am not sure but I think that the advantage of what he has proposed is that advertisements on the parking page could be used to both pay for the bandwidth and possibly bring revenue that could be donated to OpenSource projects. Why park your domain on your registrar's parking servers when you can both provide revenue and ensure that the parked site is registering as running on an open platform? Geeks love to show their love for O/S, this is their chance.

OpenSourceParking.com test

Technocrat.net Editor

Wed Apr 12 12:18:46 -0700 2006

manage

They will be in the Netcraft report whether anyone submits them or not. My primary goal was to take the "appearance only" Netcraft report share away from IIS / Windows. But others have shown that advertising on parked domains is effective, and Free Software can use the funds. If I can get up to 750K hits/month, we can start using Adsense for Domains. With lower numbers, other services are available.

Things I'd use the funds for:

• Maintaining the parking infrastructure.
• Building a real PAC (political action committee) for Free Softare

Thanks

Bruce

OpenSourceParking.com test

Chad Perrin

Tue Apr 25 17:46:19 -0700 2006

manage

Frankly, at this point in history, building a FLOSS advocacy PAC is in my estimation one of the most important things we can do with our money in terms of helping out the software we use.  By the way, I wrote a summary of the whole GoDaddy situation for online publication -- it might be of interest to this discussion:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6063349.html

OpenSourceParking.com

Rene Schmidt

Thu Apr 13 04:13:34 -0700 2006

manage

Hello Bruce,

I appreciate your effort. But maybe you should point out that primarily Non-F/OSS httpd users should park their domains with opensourceparking.com. Otherwise there would be an unwanted shift not only from Apache to ISS but also from Apache to lighttpd. I assume this is NOT your goal.

Rene Schmidt
http://log.reneschmidt.de

OpenSourceParking.com

Rene Schmidt

Thu Apr 13 04:18:42 -0700 2006

manage

Let me be more exact... I mean it's there is no gain parking inactive domains with opensourceparking.com when they *are* already being hosted on an F/OSS webserver. Or am I wrong...

OpenSourceParking.com

Technocrat.net Editor

Thu Apr 13 08:02:09 -0700 2006

manage

Hi Rene,

I have been thinking of establishing a parking site that identifies itself as Apache as well. That would address the issue for folks who wish to support Apache rather than Open Source in general. My goal is to counter artificial changes in market-share. Lighttpd is gaining on Apache for technical reasons, including at my own sites, and I'm not sure it makes sense for us to stand in the way of that.

    Thanks

    Bruce

OpenSourceParking.com

Technocrat.net Editor

Sun Apr 16 05:32:10 -0700 2006

manage

After sufficient discussion about statistics, the server now identifies as Apache 2.

    Thanks

    Bruce

OpenSourceParking.com

Grifeg Guvaf

Sun May 14 10:22:30 -0700 2006

manage

OpenSourceParking.com

Grifeg Guvaf

Sun May 14 10:26:13 -0700 2006

manage

It sends "Server:" in front of the header, i.e.: Server: Server: Apache/2.0.54 (Debian GNU/Linux) Netcraft might not parse that as Apache. The E-tag also looks strange. Also, this site seems broken in Opera. Hence my previous empty comment, sorry, it wasn't empty when I posted it.

OpenSourceParking.com

Ferenc Veres

Mon Apr 17 08:44:53 -0700 2006

manage

Hi, I pointed five (a few more coming) domains. ;-) But in the www-less entry, I can use only A record, which means, I must use your IP address in the DNS server. Can I get a notification when that changes?? (I use win2k3's default DNS server. Or can I create the "(same as parent folder)" entry as CNAME? Many people told me, for www-less "domain name only" entry I must always use IP address.) Ferenc

OpenSourceParking.com

Technocrat.net Editor

Mon Apr 17 10:35:59 -0700 2006

manage

Yes, I will establish a mailing list for bulletins.

The only other thing I can suggest is changing the domain servers for those domains to ns[12].opensourceparking.com - and that takes longer to recover from than you might like.

I guess this is a consequence of Microsoft attempting to make things easy. In ISC BIND I can do:

    @   IN CNAME opensourceparking.com.
    *      IN CNAME opensourceparking.com.

That would get the WWW-less domain and all variants "www.", "foo.", etc.

    Thanks

    Bruce

orthoganal drive

Phil Carmody

Tue Apr 18 07:42:14 -0700 2006

manage

Nope, I'm not talking about mounting your Seagate at 90 degrees...

Would not an even sweeter revenge be to attack the "active server" sector?

I run many web services (distributed computing tasks, etc.) off funky ports (just so that bots don't trawl them), and I've left my port-80 server showing the standard debian apache page. I therefore tally as no more than yet another inactive apache luser, when in reality I'm quite the opposite - a fairly active pro-FOSS developer and user. I now have the inclination to just stuck up a non-default page, so that I no longer count as inactive.

Surely the transition from inactive/MS to active/apache is a more positive one than to just inactive/apache?

Of course, this might turn into an exercise of "gaming" netcraft and its "inactivity" detector.

FatPhil

24/7 system administration?

tert

Tue Apr 18 09:09:49 -0700 2006

manage

Why on earth do you need this? Could there possibly be any application less mission-critical (or fool-proof) than domain parking? Putting aside exactly why we want to encourage squatters to use one application over another in the first place, this smells suspiciously of patronage.

OpenSourceParking.com

Ed

Tue Apr 18 10:55:27 -0700 2006

manage

I am new to open source and domain parking but do own over 50 domain names currently parked at www.dotster.com and I am wondering if this is something an individual can do albeit with limited technical know-how but some technical tools and willing to learn.  I  would love to support the open source movement in doing this.

Thanks,
Ed

OpenSourceParking.com

Kevin

Wed Apr 19 04:27:12 -0700 2006

manage

dotster.com  uses Apache so no problems there.

One of the domains we have registered uses go daddy to park the domain but they offer a redirect service so you can point it to a real webserver. Is there any plans for OpenSourceParking.com  to offer a similer service?
I checked what the domain in question shows up as and it's FreeBSD Apache/2.1.4 (FreeBSD) PHP/4.4.1 so at lest we are not adding to the problem.

I have to say it never occured to me that parked domains would be counted by netcraft and that a switch by such an organisation could cause such a false impression of growth by IIS web servers. I'm sure Microsoft will make good use of this to spin yet another story of how their solutions are better than the offerings from the Open Source community.
Good Luck with your efforts.

OpenSourceParking.com

sycomonkey

Wed Apr 19 10:16:34 -0700 2006

manage

I have a domain hosted with speakeasy, but I have lost intrest in maintaining the site for the time being. I'm not sure exactly what will happen when I cancel my account, but I'd like to park the domain, and this is as good a place as any. I can change the "A" and "CNAME" DNS settings for the site, but I don't know if those will keep when I cancel the account, or if those are even the correct things to change in this case.

OpenSourceParking.com

deepak

Wed Apr 19 14:57:33 -0700 2006

manage

I just pointed all my parked domain to http://technocrat.net/user/activate/3040?token=PMGKqFHoZT. Thanks for calling this to people's attention, yes many managers think IIS is climbing.

OpenSourceParking.com

Sten Drescher

Wed Apr 19 16:17:25 -0700 2006

manage

I use my domain for email, but would like to "park" my web presence there.  how would I go about doing that?

OpenSourceParking.com

Ferenc Veres

Sat Apr 22 15:37:37 -0700 2006

manage

Hi, Keep the domain servers where they are. Keep the MX record for the domains in those DNS servers as now they are. Change the "www." and "domain.xx." HOST ENTRIES to CNAME opensourceparking.com. MX record (Mail eXchanger) is a separate entry in the domain zone files, thus this is possible without problems. Regards, Ferenc

Using the opensourceparking nameservers

Jerry Askew

Wed Apr 19 21:30:07 -0700 2006

manage

I just started pointing my unused domains to opensourceparking via the name server method.  I was pleased to see that a default SPF record was set up (which will hopefully reduce the use of my domains for spam purposes).  It might be better to simply have a "-all" entry, though, as opposed to listing a few servers at parens.com (although that shouldn't negate the anti-spam benefits of the existing SPF record)

As a general suggestion:  Would it be possible to post a spec somewhere that shows what the virtual DNS zone looks like for domains using nsX.opensourceparking.com?  I think it would be good to publish the various names & resources that will resolve for domains that are delegated to opensourceparking's nameservers.

Using the opensourceparking nameservers

Chris O

Mon May 01 07:46:06 -0700 2006

manage

As a web developer, programmer, and hostmaster, I’m a big fan of both Open source and Microsoft products. I don’t understand the reason for hostility over a small market shift. Apache and IIS are both exceptional servers.

OpenSourceParking.com

Robert Mathews

Wed May 24 17:28:20 -0700 2006

manage

I realize that GoDaddy isn't actually the cause of this problem, but I still found it a little ironic that opensourceparking.com itself is registered through GoDaddy (well, a GoDaddy reseller).

trying to park, but no success

Eduardo

Fri Dec 01 15:30:54 -0800 2006

manage

Hey,
I am trying to park some domains at Opensourceparking.com to no avail.

The problem is: i am creating a few new domain, and i am right in the step where i am required to have the DNS servers set up.  When i set the domain servers to ns1.opensourceparking.com and ns2.opensourceparking.com, send the information to my registrar, the servers at opensourceparking reply "domain unknown".
I am in Brazil, there is a single oficial registrar here, and the domain i am trying to park now is chikung.pro.br (which is on an uncommon TLD).
I have written to Bruce about this, and he replied promptly: "Some registrars have a function to 'add foreign name server'. It is necessary for the registry to know about the name server before it will let you use it."
I have found no such option in my registrar pages, but i just wrote to them about the problem.

I am writing here too in the hope that someone can help me with this.
If someone cares to replicate the error, there is a public page belonging to the registrar not requiring login here:
http://registro.br/cgi-bin/nicbr/dnscheck
There are two fields, the first is the domain and the second is the DNS address.  The button on the left is "research" and the button on the right is "clear".  The error in portuguese will read "Dominio desconhecido" and will appear in blueish green (it is a link to a FAQ).

OpenSourceParking.com

GeorgeB

Fri Dec 08 17:32:08 -0800 2006

manage

According to rfc1034 section 3.6.2 the domain name (domain.com) can't be an CNAME record, it must be A. I set it up for my domain to point directly to opensourceparking.com's IP. But is there some spam list I can subscribe to to be notified if the IP changes, or other opensourceparking.com related news ? (except for technocrat.net :) )

Also, the Firefox banner should be updated with the Firefox2 version.

Thanks, George