Slashdot Mirror


Is Domain Speculation Bust?

The latest Netcraft survey is more interesting than usual, because it reports a drop in the total number of registered domain names, as well as a decreasing number of sites reachable overall by the survey. It's been a traumatic year in the tech world, but the drop in domain names goes back to domain name buy-ups of 1999 (and looks like it will accelerate the same way domain speculation did in 2000). All is not gloom, though, and the number of registered domain names is not the same as the number of active sites. The Netcraft site points out that "as domains bought for speculative reasons are abandoned, we can expect a higher proportion of sites to be active." Read the rest of the survey report for more interesting information on the state of the domain world.

229 comments

  1. not only that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have seen some companies with literally hundreds of domains registered that are based on their "brand" and in various TLDs...

    As budgets get cut, and people wake up to the reality of the net you will probably see these registrations lapse...

    1. Re:not only that... by aka-ed · · Score: 4, Funny

      You may have noticed that, since February, entering a typo in the address bar of a browser is much less likely to send you to an advertising site. That's due to the FTC action against Gregory Lasrado. This may have helped reduce the number of registrations.

      Once in a while the gov does something right.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    2. Re:not only that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because in the last couple years there's been effective legal protections put in place against trademark squatters. (too effective?)

      Why go through the administrative hassle of tracking 100s of domians when you can just have your lawyers smack a squatter around in some international monkey court?

      After the many of early squatters essentially extorted the companies for cash (pay me or your trademark becomes a gay porn site), most places are in no mood to deal with these guys.

    3. Re:not only that... by mzito · · Score: 1

      No way - if you're a large organization with a couple of thousand domain names, it costs you maybe 20 dollars a year per name to keep them. What's 50k to a huge corporation?

      Thanks,
      Matt

      --
      me@mzi.to
    4. Re:not only that... by HalfWalker · · Score: 1

      "I must, and yet I cannot. How do you calculate that? Where do 'must' and 'cannot' meet on the graph?"

      They meet on the graph at the intersection of "Robot" and "Monster" :)

      --
      94TT :)
  2. Bubble burst? by filtersweep · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I always laughed at "speculating"- like anyone was getting rich buying those stupid names being auctioned off on ebay.... like www.iwzx.com (hey! it's only four easy letters to remember!)

    --


    Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
    1. Re:Bubble burst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey iwzx.com is available :)

    2. Re:Bubble burst? by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
      There's more than a few cases of (stupid) companies paying hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars for domain names back in the early days of the net rush.

      I think the record was something like 7 million for business.com (when's the last time you visited business.com? Heh heh)...

      So, people actually have gotten rich (or added to their wealth in some cases) doing this, but the time to do it was 2-3 years ago (selling names originally registered 4 or more years ago), not today.

    3. Re:Bubble burst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the record was something like 7 million for business.com (when's the last time you visited business.com? Heh heh)...

      Excite.com was just sold for 10 million. When VA goes out of business they'll probably get at least a million for slashdot.org.

    4. Re:Bubble burst? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1, Troll

      Speaking of which -- VA Research Buys linux.com for $5 Million

      The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:Bubble burst? by Chris+Parrinello · · Score: 1

      I had one idiot spam me soliciting me to buy one of the the remaining 3 letter domain names he had for sale for hundreds of dollars. These were domains like jh3.net and 1aq.com and crap like that. I complained to his service provider which eventually got back to him and prompted him to call me at home and threaten to sell my name to all of the spam email providers. I told him that I'm probably already on those lists so don't bother. He mentioned something about already selling domain names for thousands of dollars and I uttered something about a fool and his money which caused him to hang up.

      I just checked on his domain that he was using to sell domain names and it is porn ad site now. Big shock there...

    6. Re:Bubble burst? by johnnyb · · Score: 2

      The funny thing is that Microsoft bid up the price just to help accelerate the eventual doom of our fav Linux community website company.

      ***

      I don't think so. If I remember right, the person selling that domain only wanted a "serious" bid, but it was mainly based on what plans they had for it. It did not go to the highest bidder.

    7. Re:Bubble burst? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1
      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    8. Re:Bubble burst? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I have a 3-character .com domain name which I intentionally picked by using the random number function of a Casio calculator and a lookup table, just so I could have a 3-character name, and I thought it was a pretty decent one, too, for being random. That was back in March 2000.

      But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part was back in September 2000, when I noticed someone had taken the .net of my domain. Sure enough, some idiots with more money than sense had registered every possible 3-character .com and .net name that hadn't yet been taken. Not surprisingly, they didn't renew the .net of my domain in 2001.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    9. Re:Bubble burst? by CheeseMunkie · · Score: 1

      Not only in the early days, either. In July-August 2001, TDC, Danish Telecom, shelled out $3.2 million for the domain tdc.dk.

    10. Re:Bubble burst? by johnnyb · · Score: 2

      No, CNET says they bid. They did not say that Microsoft's bid made it more costly. As the CNET article says, the person who sold the domain did NOT take the top bid. So, they bid on it, but that did not affect what the others had to bid on it to get it.

  3. Of course it's bust by SumDeusExMachina · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Domain speculation was based on the same principles, and tied to, the dotcom revolution. As soon as people realized that speculating in companies that had no business plan to speak of, they pulled their money out of the market, which consequently left the dotcom people without any money to blow on expensive domain names. Thus, no one can sell obvious things like "business.com" for $400,000,000,000,000 or whatever.

    All I can say for myself is that I'm glad that bullshit has passed. I will no longer have to worry about having to pay a hefty sum for a domain I want just because it sounds trendy. More power to the people.

    --

    Is your company running tools written by ma
    1. Re:Of course it's bust by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The bubble burst not because people pulled money out, but because they just stopped putting it in. And without actual revenue the money just drained out without being restored.

    2. Re:Of course it's bust by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Otherwise known as a "pyramid scheme".

    3. Re:Of course it's bust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, it's a bit more complicated than that -- lots of perfectly good ideas (or "business plans") were ruined because the investors said "You no longer have 'First Mover Advantage', and therefore you need to spend $100M in marketing in one year to build a customer base".

      Then of course, they said "You spent $100M of our money with nothing to show for it? No more financing for you!!"

      (But what was really going on was that smart Silly Valley capitalists were snooking backwater old money folks into flushing a bunch of their money into the local economy.

      People stopped putting money in because they had been taken for all they were worth. On to the next scam.)

    4. Re:Of course it's bust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of bs you're spreading. $400,000,000,000,000. Lamer

    5. Re:Of course it's bust by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And a lot of dotcommers came up with boneheaded business strategies on their own. I don't think it really qualified as a scam, because the dot com crowd actually believed that they were going to succeed, and didn't really make that much money out of it on a personal level (though I guess they had their fun spending it).

  4. The Horror by spatrick_123 · · Score: 3, Redundant

    Does this mean I should have gone to college instead of buying teenspanking.com?

    1. Re:The Horror by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 1
      Does this mean I should have gone to college instead of buying teenspanking.com?

      You're going to get a hiding from the domain name resolution committee....

      bada boom, ching!

    2. Re:The Horror by gclef · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Does this mean I should have gone to college instead of buying teenspanking.com?



      Too late:

      [g-clef@vampire g-clef]$ whois teenspanking.com
      [whois.crsnic.net]

      Whois Server Version 1.3

      Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
      with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
      for detailed information.

      Domain Name: TEENSPANKING.COM
      Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
      Referral URL: http://www.opensrs.org
      Name Server: NS.ZF.NET
      Name Server: DNS.ZF.NET
      Updated Date: 05-nov-2001

      >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:59:30 EST

      The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
      Registrars.

      [whois.opensrs.net]
      Registrant:
      NewPic.com Inc.
      9 East Loockerman Street
      Dover, DE 19901
      US

  5. Strange Question... by AixGE · · Score: 1
    Was there any point at which this was not "bust?"

    Seems like nobody made any money and the people that did actually have valuable domains just got sued into the ground. (I am not making any value statement as to whether or not this is right or wrong...)

    The rest of us just got annoying spam.

    Maybe I'm wrong, though... Does anybody have any stories they can share of people who actually made real money doing this? I mean other than Network Solutions. ;)

    --
    Get busy living or get busy dying. Carpe diem.
    1. Re:Strange Question... by instinctdesign · · Score: 1

      Heh, well... even if Network Solutions did make lots of money because of this, in the end it didn't really help them as they were aquired by VeriSign last year.

      --
      forma3
  6. Not quite yet... by AcidDan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Example: http://www.melbournecup.com/ The melbourne cup carnival

    about a year and a half ago this was a dodgy website for "Melbourne Cups"...

    I think domain speculation is going to be with us for quite awhile, but to be honest it really irks me. I hate the whole concept of sitting on something that you know someone else will have to buy off you.

    in .au land. When a company is registered, it automatically has rights to its .com.au name over anyone else. It ensures the registered business can have their online presence without having to negotiate around people already there and wanting $$$ for what you already essentially own... (doesn't apply to .orgs and .nets tho)

    Trademarks are a lot easier to enforce as I understand it, than company trading names...

    -- Dan =)

    1. Re:Not quite yet... by dushbeer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... ensures the registered business can have their online presence without having to negotiate around people already there and wanting $$$ for what you already essentially own...

      It works the other way around too. Take for example http://www.google.com.au/ which has been registered by a web hosting group that apparrently has nothing to do with the Google Inc. (the search engine we all know and use). Note that except for the URL, the word google is not mentioned anywhere on the abovementioned site, not even on their contact page, where the company is named as Dedicated Hosting Pty Ltd. Also note that Google Inc. owns an Australian Trademark for the word "google" in several computer related classes. Activities like this seem to be contrary to the spirit of the .au requirements for domain name registration.

      Anyone can effectively obtain an Australian business name to facilitate the registering of a .com.au domain, some companies even offer a business name/domain name combination for offshore visitors eg: http://www.instra.com.au/auzpack.htm

      Is this an example of an Australian business that has been registered with the sole purpose of domain squatting/speculation?

    2. Re:Not quite yet... by AcidDan · · Score: 1

      Dush, you really raise a very good point there!

      It's interesting to think of what holes there are in the system.

      I love the google example! Up until about 12-18 months before the xbox was released, xbox.com.au was a chinese news/information site (I wonder what problems M$ had there?), and would prolly fall under a "legitimate" category...

      I think you need some modding up on your points ;)

    3. Re:Not quite yet... by Kallahar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind, though, that there can be multiple companies with the same name. In the US, the law is that they have to be in dissimalar businesses or be geographically separate (I think). So, for example, which corporation gets mcdonalds.com? mcdonalds fast food or mcdonalds wholesale foods? Is it might makes right?

      ICANN was supposed to arbitrate based on which group "deserves" the name, but we all know they tend to favor corporations heavily over normal people...

      That said, I really hate squatters :)

    4. Re:Not quite yet... by cute-boy · · Score: 1

      The google.com.au annoys the f*ck out of me, since it's a typo I have made more than a few times (being in Australia means typing .au is somewhat automatic. When you hit instra.com.au they won't let you out of the site with the browser "Back" button.

      I emailed then about this when I first ended up at their site accidentally, and had no response. The last time I made the mistake, nothing had changed: Another hosting company I wouldn't touch becuase of the mindset behind that sort of thing.

    5. Re:Not quite yet... by Artemis · · Score: 1

      Maybe their layout has changed recently but I had no problems "backing out" of instra.com.au, either by hitting the back button or by holding it until the list of previous sites came up.

    6. Re:Not quite yet... by fleener · · Score: 2

      Who gets the name? The company with the most lawyers.

    7. Re:Not quite yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the whole concept of sitting on something that you know someone else will have to buy off you.

      You mean real estate?

  7. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'll probably "get rich quick" (TM)

  8. The future could still be bright. by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There will always be money in p0rn. Don't say that all dot.coms are bust.

  9. Bad news for .biz by LeninZhiv · · Score: 1

    Isn't that entire TLD predicated on the idea that companies will have to register their sites with them to avoid having them fall into the hands of speculators?

    Not that I'm feeling too sorry for them...

    1. Re:Bad news for .biz by danielrose · · Score: 1

      Bad news for .biz

      Does that mean it's bad news for spam too? The two seem to go hand in hand...

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
  10. Somewhat Ironic... by instinctdesign · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its somewhat ironic that the drop is happening now, just as getting a domain name is cheaper and easier than ever before. I remember lot too long ago when I went to register my first domain name (www.instinctdesign.com) and the only option was Network Solutions at a wonderful 70 dollars a pop for the first two years. Since the break-up of that particular monopoly I have registered a number more for only ten dollars a year and if you buy in bulk (thank you, I'm not that nuts) it can get even cheaper prices. Odd though that the new TLDs only got a passing mention, sure was a lot of whoopla over what seems to have turned out to be... well, not much.

    --
    forma3
    1. Re:Somewhat Ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which registrars do you use to get such good prices?

  11. Machines or websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I notice Apache still has a commanding lead, but wonder how it would look on an actual machine basis. I know much of the low cost hosts run hundreds if not thousands of websites on one machine.

    I also wonder how many of those websites are more or less abandoned and/or derelict websites which are no longer maintained.

    1. Re:Machines or websites. by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      Important item to note. Windows 2K/XP are restricted to Intel (NT *USED TO* support Alpha and MIPS). You can only handle so many websites on an Intel box. Windows' version of "scalability" consists of running on a 4-cpu Intel machine. Linux , on the other hand, runs on AIX, PowerPC, Sparc, HP minis, and IBM mainframes. Any of these machines can easily run as many websites, with as much traffic, as a Windows "server farm".

      When you get to large web-hosting operations, economies of scale kick in. It's cheaper to have one large machine, with one software licence, than 50 or 100 machines with accompanying software licences. Oh yeah, not only does Apache have far fewer security problems than IIS, but it's a lot easier to apply a security patch to one machine than to 100 machines.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    2. Re:Machines or websites. by posmon · · Score: 1

      *cough*datacenter*cough*

      --

      update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315

    3. Re:Machines or websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... Who mentioned Linux, Apache was mentioned. Apache also runs on Windows and dozens of other platforms.

      Why must you goons always shout about how great Linux is whenever windows is mentioned. Ya'know if it was really that great you wouldn't always have to shout about how great it is.

      Geesh it is like you have type of OS inferiority compelx or something

    4. Re:Machines or websites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache doesnt run properly on windows and no one uses it on that platform.

      Why must you goons always shout about how great Windows is whenever linux is mentioned. Ya'know if it was really that great you wouldn't always have to shout about how great it is.

      Geesh it is like you have type of OS inferiority compelx or something

  12. The Internet is maturing by vishakh · · Score: 2, Informative

    IMO, this is further indication that the internet is maturing as a communications medium. Until last year, the net was fairly new and its nature and content evolved every month. I think we are finally beginning to realize what we are going to do with it.

    For starters, the days of the ideological, free internet are sadly over. Almost everyone experimented with the free model of the internet and a large proportion of those people failed in their efforts. We have now labelled every commodity with a price, something that will help this medium further.

    Then there are the signs that the infant internet is dying. The millions of badly-designed, rearely-updated pages are perishing, and a more well-woven web is taking over. The initial hysteria is gone, most people have already tried their hands at bulilding webpages and have given up due to their lack of talent and/or initiative.

    Thus I, for one, am happy at these new state of affairs. I'm not a big fan of paying for content, but that doesnt matter since there are ways of getting around it. I like the better content, the smoother usability and the more complex apps that are emerging today.

    --

    Posting messages for the betterment of humanity..

    1. Re:The Internet is maturing by shrdlu · · Score: 3, Insightful
      IMO, this is further indication that the internet is maturing as a communications medium. Until last year, the net was fairly new and its nature and content evolved every month. I think we are finally beginning to realize what we are going to do with it.

      Say what? Until last year?

      First, the hypertext transport protocol does not define the net (that's http to you youngsters).

      Second, the net's been around for more than a quarter century, and shows no signs of slowing down.

      Third, I think that you might want to hang around for a few years or so before you start to make pronouncements like this one. Check out the posts that Google has archived if you don't think your mistakes live forever. Mine sure do (and I left them there, why not?).

      Fourth, the internet is indeed maturing. It will continue to change, and grow, just as it has in the past. Remember, the future is stranger than we can imagine.

      --
      The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. (Mark Twain)
    2. Re:The Internet is maturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he is referring to the "commercial" internet. i.e. Windows 95 onward.

    3. Re:The Internet is maturing by budgenator · · Score: 2

      Yes companies are starting to realize that the web-space is mostly analogous to a magazine or radio. And like Magazines or Radio you need quality content to pull in impressions, and that the revenue is mostly from advertising subscription revenue covers little more than overhead.

      I think you are wrong about the web-space sorting out into a big-guys only thing, the same as there are a lot of hard to find specialty magazines, and narrow niche radio staions out there if you know where to look. I've often thought gee if I make a barbeque web-site and actualy made some money off it wouldn't my backyard cookouts become an R&D expense?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:The Internet is maturing by d-e-w · · Score: 1

      Say what? Until last year?

      First, the hypertext transport protocol does not define the net (that's http to you youngsters).

      Second, the net's been around for more than a quarter century, and shows no signs of slowing down.

      Third, I think that you might want to hang around for a few years or so before you start to make
      pronouncements like this one. Check out the posts that Google has archived if you don't think your
      mistakes live forever. Mine sure do (and I left them there, why not?).

      Fourth, the internet is indeed maturing. It will continue to change, and grow, just as it has in the
      past. Remember, the future is stranger than we can imagine.


      Yes it is.

      But, I think I understand what the other poster was trying to say. I was thinking the same thing this morning, while reading an article in an IT management publication (don't worry, I read but don't practice ;)

      Of course, I can't find the quote right now ...

      But basically, what the quote said was that the internet is a unique business environment that must be regarded as this "separate" thing. That's bullshit, especially now. It might be a separate thing for the clueless CEO types who have chosen NOT to be educated in its use. But it's come to a certain point of maturation, whereas it's considered a normal part of daily life for many ordinary people. Any company that still treats it separately from their overall business plan is going to run into problems.

      But this acceptance of the internet is actually slowing down the overall evolution. There are innovations going on, but the LCD is bigger than ever. Not only are my parents not going to upgrade the OS until they get a new computer--they are probably not going to upgrade their browser. And if you're an active business on the internet, you can't move forward too much faster than the speed of the LCD. IE 5/6 and NS 6 have been out for a while now. But my biggest group of users (as a webmaster) are STILL IE 4 and NS 4 (IE 4 is slowly moving towards IE 5/5.5/6--but think about how *long* IE 5 has actually been out there!) It has not gotten to the point whereas I can easily disregard those browsers and all their bugs. The consumer cycle of upgrading has slowed (and right at the point where it makes it painful to introduce complex CSS *argh*)

      Some time in the last year, the W3 reversed their stance on things. It used to be that they were at the forefront of urging people to program for all browsers. But I think they've come to realize something--that doing so prolongs the lifespan of these browsers for far too long. Now they say to use the new features, force users to upgrade. As an NFP site, we may do that. We have been stuck for so long--we want to use the display features that things like CSS offer us. But it's a lot tougher for business [with good business sense.] If your chosen 4 series browser doesn't work with site #1, will you as a consumer upgrade your browser, or go to site #2? Many consumers will go to site #2. It's a balancing act between consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It has always been present, but I think that consumers themselves have managed to plateau the evolution in the past year.

      The innovations will come, but you've got to overcome the consumer's desire to stagnate in order to introduce them. That's were the trick is. It will continue to change and grow, but people hesitate at change. The growth of the use of IM and P2P is actually promising, as it shows that something that is introduced properly will eventually grab the attention of the LCD. But the slow browser upgrade cycle that I see as a webmaster is worrisome (Especially when you're dealing with IE. They need those damned patches!)
      I have felt trapped by the continuing consumer embrace of the 4 (and IE 5.0; it has many of the same problems) series browsers. And that I think is telling of the type of problems that will slow the evolution of the internet in the near future. Once something is accepted, newer versions of it are hard to introduce. Even Microsoft is coming to that realization--their biggest competitor is earlier versions of their own software!

  13. Had a cool URL which recently expired... by MsGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone for www.willcodehtml4food.com? It's now up for grabs...since I'm not really in the Web design/development business at this point I really don't need it anymore. I had it registered at Dotster.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  14. Must Sell! by DeadBugs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Due to these tough times I am forced to sell Squatter.com, which I have held on to for years hoping to cash in but never had any intention of using.

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
    1. Re:Must Sell! by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1

      At least you never registered Scienceass.com. I still dont know what the hell I was thinking.

    2. Re:Must Sell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always try shopping the name to various toilet manufacturers...

  15. What about this? by WickedClean · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I wish my host would keep my site up. its been unavailable since new year's. If they blame Y2K, I'm dropping them.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
    1. Re:What about this? by alexburke · · Score: 2

      If you're interested in reliable and inexpensive hosting of your site by geeks, check us out. Remember all pricing is in Canadian dollars, so divide by 34095 to get the US dollar equivalent. ;)

    2. Re:What about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh.. you've got a lot of guts plugging a windows NT based host on slashdot. anyway, the guy said he was tired of his site going down, so he probably wants to move away from winNT.

    3. Re:What about this? by alexburke · · Score: 2

      you've got a lot of guts plugging a windows NT based host on slashdot.

      Hey, I try. :) That's NT 5, by the way.

      anyway, the guy said he was tired of his site going down, so he probably wants to move away from winNT.

      NT and its successors are generally really stable if you wait a while before patching non-critical things to avoid b0rked patches. Also, it helps to have highly-trained (no, I don't consider having an MCSE to equal being highly trained) admin who knows the OS inside and out and who can nicely plug IIS's holes.

      My business partner is our NT admin, and he knows it cold. (I took care of a Linux hosting box for years before I teamed up with him, and I still poke fun at IIS in his presence from time to time.) For example, we haven't been affected by *any* IIS DoS, worm, or hole. Ever.

      When I said "hosting by geeks", I didn't mean "hosting by Linux geeks". I meant geeks in an agnostic way. :)

    4. Re:What about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats your cost/mo for a colo'd linux box or a farm of 16 1U linux boxes ? and your price for hosting a site based on linux + java with DB/2 ?
      just curious..i might have something for you if your prices are decent.

    5. Re:What about this? by alexburke · · Score: 1

      Email me at slashdot@NOalexburkeSPAM.ca (remove the obvious bits). Slashdot isn't the place for this. :) We're a Canadian company, so if you're American your dollar buys 55% more with us.

  16. fear and speculation and the Telemarketing Game by dnight · · Score: 5, Funny

    Several weeks ago, I was sent an unsolicited "legalspeak" fax notifying me that I had 24 hours to respond, or I would lose all claim to the (My Company Name).info name. Interesting marketing technique.

    I called and pretended to be horrified that I would lose all claim to it, and told them our legal department would be in contact with them immediately to negotiate a settlement. The poor lady on the other end of the phone was conpletely thrown for a loop.

    The game is scored by minutes kept on the phone plus 5 points for every repeated phrase, and if you get the marketer to swear, we win automatically.

    Needless to say, it was great fun. :)

    1. Re:fear and speculation and the Telemarketing Game by danielrose · · Score: 1

      roflmao! thats the funniest thing i've read today! :)

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
  17. Speculating by fm6 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A few people did well reselling domain names (AltaVista Technology, the web hosting company, not the search engine, comes to mind), though I suspect these were mostly names that web pioneers had picked up for their own use, only to discover some deep-pockets company wanted them and were willing to pay.

    But once a few people got rich that way, naturally there was a "gold rush". It's no different than the Florida Land Bubble, the tulip bubble, or a zillion other speculative bubbles.

    For that matter, how different is the stock market, with its rumor-chasing mentality? Or modern currency, which is valuable only because you can use it to buy Goods and Services -- which are produced only because they're worth money!

    Which is not an argument for going back to the Gold Standard or shutting down Wall Street. It's just a reminder that speculation and fiat are both essential parts of a modern economy.

    1. Re:Speculating by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      or a zillion other speculative bubbles [clarity.net].

      There's an interesting paragraph near the bottom of that eassy, under "1997?". Freifeld tries to make a level-headed assesment of the stock market in 1997, putting it in the perspective of a half dozen bubbles he's just analyzed. His assessment:

      there are some telltale signs that the market for stocks has gone a bit too far

      But he admits:

      The bubble is as difficult to recognize before it's over as it is easy to spot in hindsight.

      We all knew it was getting too hot, but we didn't know how far it would go. Anyone who pulled out out of tech in 1997 could have easily quadrupled his money, had he sold in March Y2K instead.

      So why don't you /. kiddies quit bitching about how much domains were selling for, or how stupid the dotcom bubble was. If your foresight had been half as good as your hindsight, you'd all be billionaires right now from the companies you shorted in '99.

    2. Re:Speculating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too true -- I recall telling someone back in 1995 or so that Internet business was stupid and would never amount to anything more more than the J Crew catalog, and that they only companies that would make any money would be Sun and Cisco.

      After making that insightful prouncement, did I go and buy SUNW and CSCO? No.

      At least I can say that I wasn't one of those dilholes who thought he was smart by daytrading ebay from $200 up to $350 before losing his shirt.

      But, when Greenspan had his "irrational exuberance" quip, some people should have taken not instead of convincing themselves that it _really_ was rational. The smart people were already shorting at that point.

    3. Re:Speculating by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The smart people were already shorting at that point.

      And most of those "smart people" got burned with margin calls, forcing them to close their positions long before the bubble burst.

    4. Re:Speculating by budgenator · · Score: 3, Funny

      We all knew it was getting too hot, but we didn't know how far it would go.
      Buy quality for the long term, does the business plan make sense or is it all Blue Smoke and mirrors.
      Resource allocation helps a lot, if the riskier tech stocks pick up too much value compared to your solid blue chip's, reallocate.

      As far as domain name speculation goes, its about supply and demand. When Companies overestimated the economic potential of the web, names were scarce and therefore valuable in themselves, after the dotBomb most companies are a lot more careful about looking through the BS and some are positively gun-shy, making names plentifull and less valuable.

      As far as shorting stocks, you'd better only do it with money that you saved up for a Vegas trip, but remember slots there pay out 98.7%, and are probably a better deal!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Speculating by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 1

      If your foresight had been half as good as your hindsight, you'd all be billionaires right now from the companies you shorted in '99.

      In other words, "my GET RICH QUICK scheme blew up in my face, but if you guys were so smart you would have thought of a better way to MAKE MONEY FAST!!!"

      Sorry, I have better things to do than get rich. As a smart programmer, I can make as much money as I need the old fashioned way, by earning it. I could probably double my salary in a month if I wanted to, but I would have to work harder, and that is not a price I am willing to pay.

      As long as I can afford to buy computers and beer, I would rather do less work than make more money. While you are running around like a hamster in an exercise wheel, chasing after money that is always just beyond your reach, I am actually enjoying my life. Whoever said "time is money" got it wrong: time is more important than money.

  18. $7.5M by waldoj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thus, no one can sell obvious things like "business.com" for $400,000,000,000,000 or whatever.

    business.com sold for -- I kid you not -- $7.5M US in November of 1999. What were they thinking?

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:$7.5M by danielrose · · Score: 1

      $7.5M != $400,000,000,000,000 now, is it? :P

      --
      i hate pansy republicans
    2. Re:$7.5M by noc · · Score: 1
      business.com sold for -- I kid you not -- $7.5M US in November of 1999 [salon.com]. What were they thinking?

      "Damn I've got a lot of VC ... lessee, where can I throw it", perhaps?

    3. Re:$7.5M by rebbie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The $7.5M was not really what the domain was worth or what was paid for it. It may look that way at first, but if you look at the facts you'll see that it was really a way to get the guy who sold it to come on board and to also garner publicity by paying a big name for the domain.

      It turned out to be more of a signing bonus at the expense of shareholders.

      --
      On a clear disk you can seek forever
    4. Re:$7.5M by rtaylor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thats nothing.. The sale of Webhosting.com to SBC adds another 2 digits to that amount (178 Mil CDN).

      http://www.canadacomputes.com/v3/story/1,1017,30 80 ,00.html?tag=132&sb=142

      Yes, they picked up a few clients and a few employees with the purchasse but it's still got to count for something :)

      --
      Rod Taylor
    5. Re:$7.5M by Erris · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      $7.5M != $400,000,000,000,000 now, is it?

      He meant 400,000,000,000,000 Euros.

      Is it really easier to get someone to lend you a million than is it to get them to lend you a thousand? Somewhere, in bussiness land, it must be nothing to spend $7.5 million dollars on something as hair brained as a search engine's name.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    6. Re:$7.5M by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Funny
      • business.com sold for -- I kid you not -- $7.5M US in November of 1999. What were they thinking?
      Apparently (by looking at the link) they were thinking, "Yahoo!".
      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    7. Re:$7.5M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can any business shell out 7.5 million dollars on a domain name when there are only a few companies even making money off the internet in the first place... makes you wonder about management doesn't it???

  19. Another one... by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Always meant to grab nakedbimbos.com, till somebody beat me to it. Now I'm glad I didn't waste $35!

  20. No online shopping... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that any company planning to sell products on a website (except for porn of course) is eventually doomed. Most people feel more comfortable being able to touch products they're going to spend their hard earned cash on, and can then take home that day. Clicking a button and then waiting like a puppy by your mailbox is not a fun way to shop.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:No online shopping... by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      Books? Say what you want about Amazon, it still beats going to a book store (price & selection).

    2. Re:No online shopping... by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      I think you're pretty broadly speaking for everyone based on your own observations. Personally I love shopping online for items that I won't get more than a box feel anyways: Computer hardware (in the past 4 years the most I've bought offline is a stick of RAM that I needed pronto), home electronics, etc. I'm the type that peruses the various boards finding the best of the best at a particular price point, and it often is the cast that the local ElectroMegaMart doesn't have in stock a model 2732-AV2 so they try to pimp whatever POS they do have. Online I can find specifically what I want, rather than "What they have in stock". Shipping wise I have NEVER had a problem, and 99% of the time it's at the door the next day. The only things I won't buy online are clothes (well..maybe. To be honest I've never thought about it as an option) or a car, but everything else is fair game.

      The only reason that so many .Bombs have occured is because of the gold rush bubble mentality, with every marginal, half-rate, low-profit e-retailer burdening itself with all the assemblage that goes along with being public entities (lawyers, CEOs, COOs, CIOs, accountants by the dozens, etc), rather than operating from the ground and growing. It says nothing for the general state of sales on the net (which last I heard continue to grow by the billions), and I think a much healthier resurgence is in store for the coming year or so.

    3. Re:No online shopping... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Most people feel more comfortable being able to touch products they're going to spend their hard earned cash on, and can then take home that day. Clicking a button and then waiting like a puppy by your mailbox is not a fun way to shop.


      Tell that to the mail-order industry. Heck - even the Home Shopping Network might enjoy a good giggle over it.
  21. The Anti-cybersquatting law by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The .com bust did have something to do with it.

    But, also the Anti-Cybersquatting laws that put penalties for people cybersquatting and typo squatting. These penalties made it unprofitable to speculate. I'd like to see a law that would make it unprofitable to SPAM.

  22. Did it ever occur to anyone... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    It is also possible Joe and Jane Blow don't want to register a domain and having every company with a trademark/product/copyright that even comes close to the domain name from sueing the crap out of them?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  23. Sad isn't it... by Xerithane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It took them this many years to realize that they were just wasting their money. I'm currently waiting out on a domain because the guy is claiming that he has received bids for $900 for the domain so I have to beat that. I told him, "Sure - send me proof of one claim that I can verify and I will gladly bid higher to secure the domain name." It successfully terminated the conversation.

    I think it's really funny that all these nimrods are finally starting to realize that hoarding domain names only works if you get things like 'doctor.com'. I just have to laugh at all those folks who helped keep the registrars business flowing.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    1. Re:Sad isn't it... by Rukapul · · Score: 1

      Who's holding the domain for ransom? If it's domaincollection.com I might can help you with the info you need...

    2. Re:Sad isn't it... by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Some Korean based company. I really could care less, it expires next month. My guess is they are just going to let it expire as it still hasn't sold. If not, then I'm really not worried about it. It looks like that project isn't going to go through anyway (Damn!)

      But thanks though :)

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  24. Yes, domain speculation is bust by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I expected this to happen, which is why I was against ".biz" domains as unnecessary. By now, everybody who has a viable business and wants a domain name has one. There's not much of a market left in names alone.

    Look at GreatDomains.com. Skip the "list prices" for domains, and look at the "recent offers" listings, which are all in the few hundred dollar range. Realistically, that's where the prices are now. And those are offers for ".com" domains. Off-brand domains like ".ws" (Western Samoa), ".tv" (Tuvalu), and ".to" (Tonga) are almost worthless.

    ICANN is now starting up a "registry escrow" program to back up the registrars, so that when registrars go bust, the domains don't disappear. It's good that they're thinking ahead. A registrar shakeout is due.

    It's over.

    1. Re:Yes, domain speculation is bust by sulli · · Score: 1

      I love how they don't list the dates of the big domain name sales. Wasn't Drugs.com sold like 3 years ago?

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    2. Re:Yes, domain speculation is bust by rbeattie · · Score: 2

      I agree it's over. Just from my own experience... as my 40+ domains are coming due (yes, I am an idiot) I'm looking at spending 40 x $8 per year (minimum) to keep them and thinking, I really don't need avdx.com (which I did register, believe it or not).

      So now I'm trimming my domains down to my name (and a couple variations) and a "business idea" name that I'm keeping in hopes that somehow someone discovers my 3 year old BizPlanPro business plan I wrote and wants to send me some venture money... ;-)

      Just so I don't feel like a complete ass, I think everyone should volunteer their stupidest domain name they registered during the frenzy.

      -Russ

      P.S. Hmmmm, what's this "No Score +1 bonus thing...

      --
      Me
    3. Re:Yes, domain speculation is bust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have > 25 karma (iirc), you automagically post at +2 threshold. But sometimes you may not feel that whatever you have to say is particularly worthy of such a boost (but you also don't feel like posting anonymously), so that's what the checkbox is for. It's sort of obliquely mentioned in the FAQ.

  25. Yeah way back... by Simon+Carr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Every once and a while people will, or should I say would have during the obvious period of madness. Now I'm not so sure. Search engines, especially good search engines like Google, have made it less profitable to just own the name and more profitable to have meaningful content or services.


    In short, instead of having business.com, or linux.com, it's probably best to have content ON business, and ON Linux. People can and will bookmark sites.

    --
    -- The unsig...
    1. Re:Yeah way back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, plus the addition of keyword search to major browsers. In the old days "Business" would get you to business.com, now it gets you to a pay-for-results search page run by MS or AOL.

  26. heh by diamond0 · · Score: 1

    I used to get six-figure "offers" for my domain (diamond.org) back in 2000.

    None of them ever came through, though.

    The cash woulda been nice, too

    --

    --
    There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
  27. spelling correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'sueing' is spelled suing.

  28. The Cthulhu look-and-feel suit by kiwipeso · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    To: Microsoft Lawyers, Inc.
    From: Azathoth, Nyarlathotep and Hastur, Elder Attorneys

    Sirs:

    Our agents among the mortal herd have brought to Our attention your recent product entitled Windows '95. Therefore We now give you statutory notice of intent of proceedings to be taken against Microsoft by the Many-Angled Ones.

    With this suit We will show that Windows '95, and to a lesser extent all of the Microsoft range of products, infringe upon the recognised "look-and-feel" of the Elder Gods, for the following reasons:

    Windows '95 is a crawling abomination from the darkest pits of Hell; No man can be in its presence for too long without being driven into gibbering insanity; A cult who worship it exist in secret amongst the mortal herd; Those who associate with it for too long develop common physical characteristics, to wit: pale, clammy skin, bulging eyes, generally unkempt physical appearance, tendency towards nocturnal living, change in diet to that which normal men do not eat (in your case tacos, burgers and Jolt Coke; in Ours, human flesh, Fungi of Yuggoth and the blood of Alien Gods); Mysterious tomes that purport to explain this phenomenon are reputed to exist; they are bound in an unnatural substance and only available at a terrible cost to the user.The Microsoft range of products seek to utterly dominate the world, and force all who dwell there to live in eternal damnation.

    As you can see, Our case is very strong, especially when you consider that most judges prefer not to have chittering things with tentacles for faces scoop out their brains and eat them.

    We hope that you will consider these points carefully and settle out of court, since it is not Our intention to have your senior partners spend the rest of their mercifully short lives under heavy sedation in a maximum security psychiatric hospital. After all, it was the Lords of the Outer Planes who gave humanity lawyers in the first place.

    Respectfully yours,
    [Oddly disturbing squiggle in some sort of ichor]

    pp. J. Arthur Hastur, LL.B., B.C.L, B.D

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  29. New TLDs. by saintlupus · · Score: 2

    From the Netcraft survey:

    The introduction of the new domains like .biz, and increasing internet development in parts of the world, will counter the abandonment of existing domains.

    Somehow, I doubt it. The new TLDs really don't seem to be working out for anyone -- I haven't seen a single ad or packaging or anything directing me to someone's .BIZ address, and I sure don't know anyone who has registered one.

    I suppose the "we got COM, NET, and ORG, gotta get BIZ!" people like CompUSA might be able to help counter the trend, but I don't think there's enough of those greedy bastards to do it.

    Good thing, too. I knew things were getting out of hand when someone squatted my domain.

    --saint

    1. Re:New TLDs. by sinnergy · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, there isn't a microsoft.biz.

      Of all of the companies out there, I'm surprised they haven't jumped on that bandwagon.

  30. Hurrah! by newbob · · Score: 3, Informative
    If this ever was profitable, especially for "alternate domains", scared execs that kept this going.

    I work for a Big Media Company, and when the .tv domain became available for people in the US to buy, we were asked "Shouldn't we hurry and register Big Media Company.TV before someone else gets it?"

    Fortunately, cool heads prevailed. We reasoned, a year ago, that the battle was over and .com won. And if anyone dared to put up a site BigMediaCompany.tv that infringed on our trademark in well accepted legal ways, we'd just sue them.

    Nobody has ever dared use our "BigMediaCompany.tv" and we saved the $50K that the .tv folks wanted. Basically, the .tv people were blackmailing the Fortune 500.

    Note for the dense: our company name isn't really BigMediaCompany

    1. Re:Hurrah! by ostiguy · · Score: 2

      I wonder if that means that the people of Tuvalu are among the few winners of the dot com boom. DIdn't they sell the .tv rights for millions, which was probably more than anyone ever garnered for .tv domain sales?

      ostiguy

    2. Re:Hurrah! by hey · · Score: 0

      I *hear* the money went to build schools and hospitals. I'm so glad they didn't waste the money "wireing" the country. Sadly global warming and rising sea levels is going to wipe out the country. So the profited by luck and one global trend and lost by another.

    3. Re:Hurrah! by rebbie · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes -- and the buyer? The dolts at Idealab! who have squandered $800 million or so of their investor's money on their various hair-brained ideas.

      --
      On a clear disk you can seek forever
    4. Re:Hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? So once they cease to exist as a landed country, do they still get to keep the domain? Do they have some sort of government-in-exile-until-the-waters-recede? And I hope they're building those schools and hospitals somewhere stable if that's true.

    5. Re:Hurrah! by d-e-w · · Score: 1

      Nobody has ever dared use our "BigMediaCompany.tv" and we saved the $50K that the .tv folks wanted. Basically, the .tv people were blackmailing the Fortune 500.

      Not just the Fortune 500. I help administer a popular (within limited circles) media-related domain. We've been around under the same name since 1995. We picked up the .org domain for our name in 1997 (prior to that we were pretty happy with second-level domains at various hosting companies.)

      When .tv premiered, I popped over to see what they wanted for that version of our name. 25K. *falls over laughing* Because our name has NOTHING to do with the television show or even the content of the site (it was an accident--the original site was hosted on a server at Ohio-State and the server's name was based on their naming scheme, not the content, yet the name stuck with the site even after it left the university servers) and the .tv suggested alternatives were related to either the television show or the content, it was clearly aimed at us. But we've never made a scrap of money off the site (and are not interested in doing so) and nobody else would be interested in that domain for that amount of money.

      Of course, I think that .tv has become aware of the "error" of their ways. That version of our name is now considered a regular site ... but I still wouldn't pay $50 a year for it!

  31. How to get rich by fm6 · · Score: 2

    Good point. I'm reminded of a bit of California history. Few, if any, 49ers got rich mining gold. But that was not true of he people who sold them supplies!

  32. Erm, yes they are! by Myriad · · Score: 3, Funny
    There will always be money in p0rn. Don't say that all dot.coms are bust.

    Hmmm, p0rn... isn't "bust" largely the point?

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Erm, yes they are! by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      Score:-1, Obvious

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    2. Re:Erm, yes they are! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2
      "Hmmm, p0rn... isn't "bust" largely the point?"

      Well, yes, "largely" is usually the operative term, in this case. But it's not the only point...

      --
      That is all.
  33. Other news by sulli · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Other news by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Flamebait -- The Netcraft data is related to the story on domain speculation.

      Netcraft's methodology is to count by host name, not by sever. Therefore, a squatter who has 100 domain names pointed at a single "Buy This Domain" page counts a 100 times in the survey. Due to the popularity of Apache at ISPs and and other hosting environments, this grossly inflates the apparent popularity of Apache in the survey. As small time or 'unused' domains disappear, you should see the Apache continue to decline.

      (After I typed all of that, I actually read the Netcraft report: The drop has had particularly evident impact this month at the popular registrar register.com, which has seen the number of registered but unused sites parked at futuresite.register.com drop by 300k, accounting for the drop in Apache numbers this month.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:Other news by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Oops -- Typo city -- I wan't accusing the parent of Flamebait, just questioning the original moderation.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:Other news by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.

      That's NOT what Netcraft actually said.

      "The drop has had particularly evident impact this month at the popular registrar register.com, which has seen the number of registered but unused sites parked at futuresite.register.com drop by 300k, accounting for the drop in Apache numbers this month."

      In other words the drop in Apache numbers was actually due to lack of registration renewals at Register.com, NOT due to any gains by Microsoft.

      If you look at the percentages based on ACTIVE sites, Apache actually INCREASED share this month, from 61.88 to 63.34, +1.46, while Microsoft increased at a much slower rate,
      26.40 to 26.62, or +0.22.

      Lest anyone claim that Apache's share is inflated by inactive sites compared to Microsoft, the Netcraft survey shows the Apache share for total active + inactive to be lower than the active share, while Microsoft's share adding inactive sites is HIGHER than it's active site share. This clearly Microsoft's numbers are inflated by a large number of inactive sites.

      In fact, if you look at total number of active sites for the past THREE months, IIS has actually declined, while Apache has increased .

    4. Re:Other news by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      As small time or 'unused' domains disappear, you should see the Apache continue to decline.

      Actually, Apache's percentage of 'active' domains is significantly higher than for all domains. Apparently it's Microsoft that is inflated by inactive domains, not Apache.

    5. Re:Other news by akihabara · · Score: 1

      It's curious how Security Space has Apache striding ahead for the last 4 months, while Netcraft does the opposite.

      It appears that Security Space doesn't fall for the IE is IIS spoof mentioned elsewhere, or else one or the other web site has an agenda.

    6. Re:Other news by Rukapul · · Score: 1
      Netcraft's methodology is to count by host name, not by sever. Therefore, a squatter who has 100 domain names pointed at a single "Buy This Domain" page counts a 100 times in the survey.
      And the effects of this are significant... www.netcraft.com shows that it looks at 27,585,726 domains. Compare this numer with the 800000+ domains held by domaincollection.com (world record holder cybersquatting) which is nearly 3% of all domains. Domains which point to a single page hosted on a Linux box with Apache.
    7. Re:Other news by jschrod · · Score: 1
      Microsoft's server market share is at its highest level ever, with much of the increased share coming from Apache.

      That's NOT what Netcraft actually said. [...]

      In fact, if you look at total number of active sites for the past THREE months, IIS has actually declined, while Apache has increased.

      Well, and you're not shy to misrepresent what Netcraft actually said:
      Mainly through gains at some of the remaining mass hosters such as Namezero and Network Solutions, IIS has seen its share increase in the full survey during the second half of the year. However for active sites IIS and Apache share has changed little during the year.
      Much more even-headed than either of your opinions, isn't it? Of course, this is /., and Netcraft prepares serious statistics, so who am I to complain... :-(
      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    8. Re:Other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You didn't disagree with him. Read what they said:

      Mainly through gains at some of the remaining mass hosters such as Namezero and Network Solutions, IIS has seen its share increase in the full survey during the second half of the year. However for active sites IIS and Apache share has changed little during the year.

      You'll note that those gains at the mass hosters were not mass website hosters, but domain registrars, which switched from parking unused domains on apache to IIS (can't imagine why... $$$). The totals list is so swamped with inactive domains (just look at the ratio of inactive vs active) as to be useless. And apache continues to post stronger gains than IIS.

    9. Re:Other news by jschrod · · Score: 1
      What? You didn't disagree with him.
      I cited:
      However for active sites IIS and Apache share has changed little during the year.
      You paraphrased him exactly as I understood him:
      The totals list is so swamped with inactive domains (just look at the ratio of inactive vs active) as to be useless. And apache continues to post stronger gains than IIS.
      I agree with your first sentence. I don't agree with your second sentence. Apache doesn't post stronger gains, the shares remain as they are.

      I have no problems with that, Apache running more than 60% of active Web sites is a fine success, isn't it?

      I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache. One must never underestimate Microsoft, and shouting "Apache wins! Apache wins!" doesn't help to assess the situation realisticly.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    10. Re:Other news by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache.

      Hmmm why? I see nothing in the current concepts or implementations of Web Services that give Microsoft an advantage of any sort over Apache. In fact the availability of lighter weight implementations like XML-RPC that can be harnessed by programmers without making large conceptual investments that Microsoft technologies require seems to me to point to an advantage for Apache. Recent publications on sites the The Server Side also seem to indicate that the Java crowd is adopting the concepts of Web Services without buying into the .NET framework.

    11. Re:Other news by jschrod · · Score: 1
      I'm more afraid that the introduction of Web services will be a disadvantage for Apache.

      Hmmm why?

      Because Microsoft successfully creates the image of Web Services as a technology that is bound to Hailstorm. While this is technically not true, the PHBs will believe it. They want to believe it, they don't understand the geek-speak of their tech staff anyhow.

      And due to the bundling with the newer Windows OSs and the forced upgrade cycle they might even be successful with this strategy -- when something is already available it's hard to substitute it with an alternative, even if it's technologically better. Witness IE.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  34. Good article by nikoftime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else find it absolutely fascinating that Network Solutions' policies, even well after the buyout by Verisign, still affect the 'internet economy' greatly. I mean, just their original monopolizing option of making people buy a two year registration caused us to have a major fallout after that time period. It's always seemed odd to me that companies can have that much effect and general will over the economy and society as a whole.

  35. Regular cycle by f00zbll · · Score: 2
    As others have mentioned, E-Business is maturing, though I would say it still hasn't graduated from infant stage. Only now is Microsoft windows really maturing to teenage state. Even though things on the internet progress faster than previous technologies, it's all relative. It took the automotive industry a whole century to mature to the current state.

    I would hold judgement about E-business for another ten years before pronouncing it mature. Technology can only move as fast as people's ability to learn and take it for granted. Remember a lot of people still do not have computers or internet access. Those of us fortunate enough to work in the IT industry often forget most of the world doesn't percieve the internet the same way.

    We'll know when the internet has matured when everyone takes it for granted. Just like cars, trains, telephone, bicycle and planes.

  36. Cheap? by fm6 · · Score: 2
    remember lot too long ago when I went to register my first domain name (www.instinctdesign.com) and the only option was Network Solutions at a wonderful 70 dollars a pop for the first two years. Since the break-up of that particular monopoly I have registered a number more for only ten dollars a year...
    Well, to trot out another free-market cliche, there's No Free Lunch. Ever try to get a domain transferred from one host to another, and it turns out your registrar is staffed entirely by trained chimps? Or lose a domain because nobody notified you that it had expired? (That one actually happened to passport.com!) Given the value of a top-level domain name, $35/year seems awfully cheap.

    And if your activity isn't big enough to justify spending that much, is it big enough to require a top-level domain name? Second level domains are much cheaper -- many presence providers throw them in for free. If your hobby is boondockcountyhistory.org, does it really matter if you have to use boondock.goodhost.com? In fact, it would save a lot of hassle over major, and even minor, domain names if more people did that.

    Note that movie studios no longer bother to even contact the squatters who've grabbed ArnoldKillsAgain.com, finding they can make do with ArnoldKillsAgain.net or even bigstudio.com/ArnoldKillsAgain.

    1. Re:Cheap? by skoda · · Score: 2

      Well, to trot out another free-market cliche, there's No Free Lunch. Ever try to get a domain transferred from one host to another, and it turns out your registrar is staffed entirely by trained chimps? Or lose a domain because nobody notified you that it had expired? (That one actually happened to passport.com!) Given the value of a top-level domain name, $35/year seems awfully cheap.

      It sounds like you've never actually registered a domain name. By all accounts, NSI is staffed entirely by trained chimps who make it impossible to manage or transfer a dn registered with them.

      In contrast, the low-cost registrars have provided quite good service to many.

      In any case, paying NSI $35 is *not* worth it. Pay less, get more.

    2. Re:Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In contrast, the low-cost registrars have provided quite good service to many.

      Have any examples?

  37. Query re: netcraft by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I run a perfectly legitimate domain (a book review site) from my house. Due to Verizon's brain-dead policies, though, I have to run it on a non-80 port. Is there a way to point Netcraft at this server so I can register it with my choice of server software?

    You may be inclined to answer "If you aren't on 80, you aren't a Big Player" but that's bullcrap. They count all those "build your own site" pieces of crap, plus everybody who forgot to turn off Personal Web Services. Why not me, too?

    --
    324006
    1. Re:Query re: netcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post the same thing - nice to know I'm not alone in this boat =|.

      AFAIK, there isn't any way to direct the netcraft tester to check a different port *except* for 443 (for SSL). However if you're not actually running an SSL-enabled server on that port it will still fail.

      I wonder how many domains were really affected tho; in Verizon land (at least my part of it) you had to be an early adopter of DSL to get a static IP. Doing some back-of-envelope calculations and pulling an answer out of my bum, I'm guessing that at most a couple of thousand domains dropped off the air from Netcraft's perspective.

    2. Re:Query re: netcraft by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      Why not just spend the $10/month or whatever it costs to use a real web hosting company, and then you would not have to deal with this BS? Doesn't Verizon also have some business-class DSL service which costs more, but doesn't have these restrictions?

      Seriously, home-based DSL/cable modem connections were never billed as or sold as your own private T1 with which you can do anything you want.

      Personally, I am all for such ISPs imposing these kinds of restrictions. People who use these kinds of connections to freeload and run business websites are hogging the bandwidth available to customers using the bandwidth for its original intended purpose... PORN! hehe

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    3. Re:Query re: netcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Plus, some of us (me) are behind firewalls at work and can't access non-standard ports. SCO puts their technical documentation for Unixware and OpenServer on webservers that listen on port 4229 (or something like that) which is extraordinarily annoying.

    4. Re:Query re: netcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon's business class DSL has a port 80 block also.

      If you want port 80 open, you have to shell out for a leased line of some sort. Apparently they don't want their T1 customers switching to DSL and sending a smaller check every month.

    5. Re:Query re: netcraft by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      If you want port 80 open, you have to shell out for a leased line of some sort. Apparently they don't want their T1 customers switching to DSL and sending a smaller check every month.

      Hehehe... imagine that!

      Oh well, it just goes to show if you want your website to be taken seriously, get some real hosting. types into their browser http://www.amazon.com:81 ! Or could you imagine a radio ad saying: www dot amazon dot com colon eighty one? I think not.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  38. Kinda OT [was Re:No online shopping...] by hiryuu · · Score: 2
    Books? Say what you want about Amazon, it still beats going to a book store (price & selection).

    Agreed, if you're talking about picking up a handful of specific textbooks, or a few mass-market paperbacks from your favorite authors - particularly if your favorite author isn't mainstream popular and/or isn't writing franchised s/f, which is all the brick-n-mortar chain stores seem to carry. (Since Borders owns Walden's own Brentano's, there's three choices wrapped up for you.)

    Although few shopping experiences (for me anyway) quite match walking into a privately-owned used/vintage bookstore and picking up paperback fiction at a buck or two apiece, stacks at a time. Great way to catch up on books you've been meaning to read without paying $7 or so each.

    --
    Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
  39. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    What is disturbing is that as the names expire, the registrars (register.com) do not put the name back in the pool of available names. Rather, they sit on it and force people to pay up to $200.00 to register it. This goes against fairness and this practice must stop. The only way to stop them is to sue them. It seems that the only theing they understand is a court order. Perhaps there is a smart lawyer out there who can make a class action lawsuit to force the registrars relinquish the names they are squatting on and force them to pay the resitration fees rather than getting a free ride on holding the names and extorting people to register it.

  40. Who listens to analysts by lseltzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting that the curve shoots up as Gartner tells people to ditch IIS.

  41. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by mzito · · Score: 1

    I've never heard this. Please cite evidence to support your claim.

    Thanks,
    Matt

    --
    me@mzi.to
  42. Its an avalanche. by percey · · Score: 1

    First of all, everything's fairly logical and shouldn't shock anyone. The economy's contracting, negative growth, and that means companies are getting smaller, firing workers, or going out of business all together if their fundamental's weren't solid (remember a rising tide lifts all boats, but the tide isn't rising.) So they have fewer people, need fewer technical support people, and perhaps put those programming projects on hold. In general it would seem a recession hits techs hard. That being said, the free-fall in the stock market that started drying up all the venture capital began about 2 years ago this April. If memory serves just about all the domains are rented for two years, at least it was the way it was done two years ago. Since things haven't turned around, no one will be renewing them. Remember, a great deal of dotcom names are tied to company names. If they don't exist anymore they too will go away. And if the economy stagnates, or continues to go down there will not be new registries. Personal sites may fill in the gap, but how many web developers can their be in the world 10 million? How many of them don't already have their own personal pages? So it is not a rosey outlook at all. However even though the internet is doomed to be smaller in this sense, it doesn't mean that this has anything to do job prospects for techies (or mean that the internet will implode like a reverse big bang). Whatever has failed, will lose their registry. Also remember most of those "dotcoms" took out TONS of domain names (at least the one I worked at did) figuring the cash to roll it out would follow. My feeling is that we work in an elastic sector and when the companies go back to making server and software purchases they will have to hire people to utilize them, regardless of how many domains exist in the world.

  43. Where'd the Microsoft Spike Come From? by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    IMHO, more significant (to say nothing of distrubing) than the domain name reduction is the huge spike in use of Microsoft web servers starting last June. The spike continues unabated through the summer of Code Red and Nimda.

    What is it that caused this surge in Microsoft web servers? And what is it that causes these clueless dweebs to ignore the substantial risks of employing Microsoft web servers?

    Crispin
    ----
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
    Available for purchase

    1. Re:Where'd the Microsoft Spike Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it that caused this surge in Microsoft web servers?

      Default installations.

    2. Re:Where'd the Microsoft Spike Come From? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. For some unknown reason (ahem $$$) a bunch of domain registrars decided to start parking squatted domains on IIS instead of apache.

      You'll note that while this netted MS a nice increase in the total domains, they still shrunk compared to apache in "active sites," which excludes squatters.

  44. Why does treeoflife.net link to a Microsoft Page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck? I was trying to find a web project called the "Tree of Life". I started with the obvious choices. When I entered www.treeoflife.net, I got a MS page for NT 4.o Option Pack. What does this have to do with the Tree of Life? I get the impression that any .net that has not been used has been bought by MS. When I entered www.treeoflife.org I got the QWest home page, i.e. www.qwest.com. What the double fuck? Is QWest suddenly a non-profit? What are they doing with treeoflife.org. This ia a new age of cybersquatting, where huge Corporatiions are buyinjg up any domain that they can get there greedy corporate hands on. Then they link it to some meaningless unrelated page, thus claiming that they are indede using it. After this I was expecting a link to the Illuminati when I typed treeoflife.gov! At least "treeoflife.com" is a real comercial concern, specializing in "Natural Foods". BTW, the Tree of Life Home Page is http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/

  45. I can't believe.. by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

    it's still going on..

    --
    Intelligent Life on Earth
  46. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by TNT_JR · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't understand how the current "top level" registry functions, but I cannot see how this could be possible? Perhaps the slimeball "registrars" are just taking advantage of some "grace period" in the hope that the registrant is unaware of it?

    The ones that *really* piss me off are the wannabe "registrars" (resellers) who scour the master registry and then send me email (to never-used contact email addresses) warning that I need to "act now" to register the .info or .biz flavors of my current domains. Those assholes in Oregon are #1 on my hit list!

    A significant improvement would be if ICANN (or whoever) would just occasionally test the contact information on domain records to insure it's validity?

    NetSol was bad enough - now we have a thousand "independant monopolies". Of course, the "government" would only make things worse if they get (more) involved - it's up to us to fix this! If it requires a road trip to Oregon, so be it.

    :|

  47. Domain drop. by Alehandro · · Score: 1

    I think that companies like networksolutions and etc have to have right to drop domain name if it's not active in 2 months. Not sure if the really care but hey!

    Keep the net clean for our children:)

    1. Re:Domain drop. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      They have no such right. Netsol (and friends) does a brutally trivial task, which is hosting a database that correlates root domain names with IP addresses (their job is basically running a single table database where people pay for row instances). If I pay them for 1,000,000 different correlations (which should cost shit all because it's so absurdly trivial) then they'd damn well better honor it regardless of what I do with it.

  48. Re:Why does treeoflife.net link to a Microsoft Pag by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    IIS 4 is installed in NT 4 by installing the option pack, and the default page is a "Hello, thanks for installing the option pack" type page. It means it's a stock machine that's probably busy spreading trojans.

  49. Network Solutions problem by NineNine · · Score: 5, Informative

    A big reason that there just aren't many domain names available any more is is Network Solutions, when a domain that they serve as registrar for expires, Network Solutions hold it for themselves. Rumor is that they were going to auction off all of their illegally collected domains at one point, but that still hasn't happened. Network Solutions is currently squatting on several domains of mine that I had let expire.

    1. Re:Network Solutions problem by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1

      Network Solutions is currently squatting on several domains of mine that I had let expire.

      How long ago did they expire? Could you name a few?

  50. And squatting is asking for legal action by xixax · · Score: 2

    Plus who is going to pay for their domain name from some squatter when you can get your lawyer to kick their head in for a fraction of the price?

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  51. I got a kewl domain name for my wife..! by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1
    .. and I thought it was a great trade [rim shot]

    No seriously..

    shortland.st

    She's a big Shortland Street fan and I happened to stumble onto the ".st" TLD when I was reading another slashdot article. So I registered it for her, set up PHP nuke, and gave it to here as a christmas present. Bugger all hits so far but a bit of blatant traffic-whoring here on /. might help.. haha..

    (For those who don't know.. Shortland Street is a New Zealand made Soap Opera which has been on the air for about 7 years now.)

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    1. Re:I got a kewl domain name for my wife..! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: fopen("ultramode.txt","w") - Permission denied in mainfile.php on line 297

      Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid File-Handle resource in mainfile.php on line 298

      Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid File-Handle resource in mainfile.php on line 304

      Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid File-Handle resource in mainfile.php on line 304

      Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid File-Handle resource in mainfile.php on line 306

      Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output started at mainfile.php:297) in /home/zcat/shortland.st/comments.php on line 640

    2. Re:I got a kewl domain name for my wife..! by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1
      Ohhhh.. a bug report..

      It did accept your post, but couldn't add anything to the ultramode.txt file. So yeah; it doesn't actually matter unless freshnews.org decide to syndicate us, but I think it's fixed now.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  52. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is evidence taken from a domain name being squat on by register.com. I obfuscated the name and dates so other vultures won't try grab for it too. Organization: register.com Unpaid Names Department-R 575 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 US Phone: 212-798-9200 Fax..: 212-594-9876 Email: admin@register.com Registrar Name....: Register.com Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com Domain Name: ~~~~~~~~.com Enter amount (min $200.00) Created on..............: Mon, ~~~ ~~, 2000 Expires on..............: Tue, ~~~ ~~, 2001 Record last updated on..: Sat, ~~~ ~~, 2001 Notice that the registrar is Unpaid Names Department-R of register.com. The name expired in the spring of 2001 and is still not available for public registration. Notice also that they are asking for $200.000 to register the name. And when you do a search on the name, it appears as bing taken.

  53. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe that ICANN is part of the problem. They seem to be buddies buddies with the registrars. What we need is so other entity to govern the domain name system.

  54. The next bubble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .com is out. .net is the next bubble. Squat away!

  55. So when do expired domain names become available? by m_evanchik · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This may be a bit off-topic, but if domain names are supposed to go back into the public domain after the original registrants?

    Network Solutions lists an owner of a few domain names I've been eyeing as expiring over three months ago, but they are still not available to be registered? Anyone have any ideas on how long a registrar can hoard a lapsed/expired domain name? Is there any process that I can pursue with ICANN to get some satisfaction on the matter?

  56. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by mzito · · Score: 1

    How can anyone verify the veracity of this without the domain name? I could type that up just as easily as you could. If you post the name, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this. At the very least, email it to me.

    Thanks,
    Matt

    --
    me@mzi.to
  57. Stopping SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The onyl way to stop spam is to set up a milter that askes for the spammers (and others) to agree to a contract to be billed to send you that mail.

    Given most spammers use 3rd party relays, they'll never see the message, and neither will you. The 3rd party relay will just collect the mail.

    1. Re:Stopping SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually there is the junk fax law as the definition of computer will match any computer with a modem and printer attached to it.

      Or you put a unique address on a page (excluded by robots.txt) on a website that has a specific set of terms of use. And the only way that those pages have been accessed are after reading the terms of use more than once.

      You might not get them on spamming, but you could get them on tresspass to chattel, copyright violation. Then get the company that writes the software under contibutory infringment. Why not use the Napster and 2600 rulings for good?

  58. I looked at the link, and someone is lying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying.

    And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

    1. Re:I looked at the link, and someone is lying! by Shanep · · Score: 1

      All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!

      Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...

      The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.

      The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.

      The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.

      This is accurate at the time of my posting.

      So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?

      With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    2. Re:I looked at the link, and someone is lying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see is a lot of talk about "facts" for someone who has no idea what they're babbling about.

      Take a look at the FAQ on netcraft about how they determine uptime. If you still don't get it, try running uptime (1) on a Linux box that has been up for over 497 days. If you still don't get it, please remove yourself from the gene pool ASAP.

      Not that the 'bsd is dying' dorks aren't morons, but the uninformed bsd cheerleaders are just as bad.

    3. Re:I looked at the link, and someone is lying! by Shanep · · Score: 1

      If you still don't get it, try running uptime (1) on a Linux box that has been up for over 497 days.

      How strange then, that the three Linux servers noted in the max uptime list, all have max uptimes of well over 800 days. Perhaps that FAQ is old.

      Before you rant that I am an uninformed bsd cheerleader, perhaps you should have taken note of my attempt at wit regarding "Linux and Windows dying" in my post, and bear in mind that Windows 2000 is not limited by the 497 day uptime roll.

      At least an "uninformed cheerleader" has an open mind compared with the anti-bsd trolls. My post was in defense of BSD, being some of the Worlds most stable servers compared with the likes of W2K and even edging out IRIX, and seeing Linux servers on the max list at 800 days, I have to wonder why there are'nt more there. : )

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  59. Numbers are suspicious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think these numbers are funky. I mean, to grow that fast that suddenly?

    I smell a rat, and I am NOT the only one...

  60. Domain squatting considered harmful by steveha · · Score: 2

    The author Ann Rule does not have the domain annrule.com because someone registered it way back in 1996. The person who got it tried to shake her down for some bucks; she instead registered annrules.com. annrule.com goes to some sort of celebrity portal.

    There was also the odd case of peta.org. Some guy registered peta.org, and set up a web site: People Eating Tasty Animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the somewhat more famous group with the initials PETA, objected to this. They contested the domain name and Network Solutions yanked the domain and handed it over to PETA.

    Then there was my own sad story. I looked into who owns the domain name qv.org, and found that a web hosting company is sitting on it; they offered me a chance to take it over for a mere $1000. "It's one of the rare remaining 2-letter domain names," I was told. I suspect it will be a long time before anyone pays them $1000 for a .org name, 2-letter or no.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  61. Is bust? by Xilman · · Score: 1
    Did anyone else first read this as the Icelandic TLD going down the pan, or is it just me?


    Paul

    --
    Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  62. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The introduction of the new domains like .biz, and increasing internet development in parts of the world, will counter the abandonment of existing domains.

    Nobody wants .biz

    The only TLD worth anything is .com

    ThinkGeek SUCKS

  63. Speculation Smeckulation by Chetmurray · · Score: 1

    At $8 a year I have about 100 domains. We use them for evilemail so they just don't sit, but not enough of you have registered for a chetrocks.com email addresses...

    We get offers every so often for the more popular domains but nothing over $500. And no one ever actually says, yes I am sending the money.

    We own istillhateyou.com and I thought having ihateyou.com would be cool. I emailed the idiot who runs the 'site' - aol address - he emailed back an asking price of $25,000. I will just wait. We have picked up more than a few domains from people who just didn't renew them, but even that is getting harder to grab with crap like verisign's snapback program.

    Chet

  64. Re:Why does treeoflife.net link to a Microsoft Pag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the info. I'm a programmer, not a System Admin. I should have looked at the page more closely, but even then I probably would not figured out that it was an unconfigured machine, with a default page.

  65. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Of course, the "government" would only make things worse if they get (more) involved - it's up to us to fix this!

    Um, who do you think it was that invented the DNS system? Who do you think ran it before NetSol and gave domain names out for free?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  66. go daddy, namebargan by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    go daddy lets you get .com/.net for like $9 or something, namebargan (which is basicaly register.com without DNS server hosting and web based admin for it) is $8. .biz and .info are even less, but you generaly have to get 2 years to start.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  67. Re:Worst squatters are Registrars by dpletche · · Score: 1

    I agree completely. Pick just about any meaningful domain name out of the blue and find that it's probably got some lame, generic "portal" parked there, with an announcement that the domain is for sale at GreatDomains.com. It's allowed, or at least tolerated, for registrars to sit on huge numbers of domain names for their own greedy ends. Domain squatters aren't doing anything constructive to justify their land grab; there's no legitimate comparison to the homesteading of the early United States frontier. Though I'm a Libertarian and don't like to propose taxation other than in exceptional cases, I believe that tax policy could serve a useful role here:

    * Charge an up-front $10/yr domain tax on all existing .com, .net and .org domains.
    * Allow a simple, refundable tax credit for up to three registered domains (with proof of payment) on each tax return.
    * Use funds collected to reduce the much-disliked USF tax on every phone bill.

    I'm also open to ideas on a fair and practical way to exempt non-citizens from the tax on registration for a limited number of domains.

    Of course another solution would be for ICANN to wake up and stop being the driving force behind the creation of these problems.

  68. Still Going by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
    I dunno--domain name speculation and stealing seems to still be going on. There used to be a wonderful site at www.mixdrinks.com. It was owned by a bartender who put his magnum opus on the net. He even had old-time pictures of his ancestors in the banners.

    It's now being glommed onto by *#@(!$ thieves, more's the pity. And the bartender's work has disappeared. Wish I knew where to find it--it did well for me back in school:-)

  69. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

    How about this.

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
  70. Domain auctions are dead and buried by Animats · · Score: 2
    Auctions are dead. Look at DomainAuction. I don't see any bids. Just endless rows of "bids: 0".

    "optimum.com" is available there for £25. If anybody cares.

    Some jerk is trying to sell GodBlessAmerica.org on Ebay, for $250,000 to $1,000,000. 14 minutes to go in the auction, and no bids.

  71. Gains by IIS or years of useless sites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gains by IIS or years of useless sites making Apache look more popular than it really was.

    The only conclusion that can be drawn is that IIS is good for real live websites and Apache is great for cyber squatters.

    The facts are right there in the netcraft survey.

  72. Extra Points for Money Earned by DanMcS · · Score: 2

    As I've often seen proclaimed on the internet, unsolicited faxes are illegal and can earn you some cash. Might be worth looking into.

    --
    Communication is only possible between equals
  73. Cable modems create a loophole in 47 USC 227 by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Actually there is the junk fax law as the definition of computer will match any computer with a modem and printer attached to it.

    I assume you refer to 47 USC 227, which requires "a regular telephone line" in the communication chain and thus excludes spam sent from a user on a cable modem service to a user on a cable modem service.

    Then get the company that writes the software under contibutory infringment.

    Some of these spammers run Free software packages such as Sendmail or Postfix under FreeBSD, Linux, or Cygwin. A judge would laugh your suit out of court on grounds that the mail packages have substantial non-infringing uses.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  74. [X] No Score +1 Bonus by yerricde · · Score: 1

    But sometimes you may not feel that whatever you have to say is particularly worthy of such a boost (but you also don't feel like posting anonymously), so that's what the checkbox is for.

    For some time back in November, the "No Score +1 Bonus" checkbox did not work for many Slashdot readers. Thank gosh it's fixed now.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  75. not smtp servers by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2
    I am not talking about going after SMTP server software. I am talking about the stealth mailing software that scrapes websites for email addresses to build the SPAM list, then SPAMs to that list.


    That loophole does not hold if you have both a cable modem and regular modem connected to the machine. See 47 USC 227 (b)(1)(c):


    to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or
    It does not require the use of the phone line for transmission in this case.

  76. so dead they can't afford the auction software by allism · · Score: 1

    I went to the site and got the following error:

    Error!
    The following errors have occurred:
    The maximum number of registered users for the demo version has been surpassed

    Current System Time: 01/02/2002 6:59 pm

    Use your browser's back button to try again.

  77. Re:Worst squatters are Resisitrars by mzito · · Score: 1

    That's different - namezero gives you the name for FREE, only they retain ownership.

    Thanks,
    Matt

    --
    me@mzi.to
  78. Re:So when do expired domain names become availabl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had similar problems with register.com. They keep on shifting the dates when an expired name would become available. Perhaps the Dept of Commerce need to weild its heavy hand to stop these abuses.

  79. Hold onto yer .coms! "The rumours of my death..." by Maudlink · · Score: 1

    Millions of outrageously crap domains like 'cyber-cuff-links.com' and 'xflmp.org' were indeed bought up by dim corporations, starry-eyed garage dingbats, and freelance hoodlums--and those poor beasts will be put down. However, if you're going to start a company (as humans wilt in their pesky will to survive), in ANY trade category--not just tech, then the intuitive dot-com and website are cost-of-entry. This is a fact, unless you sell hotdogs off of a cart, and wish to continue so to do. Just try picking a new company name and finding 1) a 'brandable,' aka not-conspicuously-dumb-sounding, dot-com that 2) has no other users to give you trademark problems in any of the one or two other countries rumoured to be on Earth, and 3) which doesn't mean 'armpit' in German, etc. You're looking at a steadily smallering pool of names held tight by lifer speculators who aren't going under as quickly as you'd like. The most pallid and porridge-assed will definitely weather this recession. Half because we believe dot-coms are profitable, and half because our collections are made of five fervid years of all-nighters. We'll sell all of our pre-4/2000 toys, steal kidneys, whatever, just to stay at the wheel, and sorry, but another fun-seeker will just take up the slack if we die (or worse yet, expire). Resent us? Dot-coms are (effectively) property, to be sold and resold, used and reused. People are given to selling property for profit--this is not Reuters material. I don't go up to your front door and say 'Hey, you're not using that spare bedroom, Satan. Howzabout me and my irrationally self-righteous boyfriend moving in?' It should be evident that speculators, not all of whom are TM infringers (very few actually, since 11/99's ACPA), are the only reason that there are any worthwhile dot-coms open for purchase at all. Most smart, sizeable corps own thouuusands of domains in a standard and quite affordable policy towards sucking market share and snuffing future competitors. Every domain one of their minions dreams up over the years, or any which are passingly relevant to their trade (or your future business idea)--all into a black hole. So stop yer preening, and if you're tossing that dot-com out with the bathwater, I'm buying.

  80. More about Cthulhu� by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    Cthulu is an infamous creation of HP Lovecraft.

    Incidently, the KAOS operating system features Cthulu and 5 other KAOS Lords in the Matrix of KAOS.

    Basically, there is a 3D world where Cthulu, Khorne, Tzeenth, Slaanesh, Nurgle & Bharne battle for power over the agent programs of KAOS.

    Cthulu handles security & randomness, Khorne handles war & destruction, Tzeenth handles evolution & learning, Slaanesh handles lust & temptation, Nurgle handles disease & corruption & Bharne is responsible for trolls, dinosaurs & other hellspawn.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer