Slashdot Mirror


The First 100 Dot Coms Ever Registered

roman1 submitted an interesting list containing the first 100 .com domains registered. Many of the names you haven't heard of, many you have. What was interesting to me is that it took 2 years just to get 100 domains on-line.

290 comments

  1. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What was interesting to me is that it took 2 years just to get 100 domains on-line. Why is that interesting? I'm not even sure if this 'internet' thing is going to catch on ...
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think because Microsoft is not in the list. Would there be any other reason to post something like this to /.?

    2. Re:Why? by exley · · Score: 1

      Whether or not it catches on we shall see on the road ahead.

    3. Re:Why? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      The people who registered "fluke.com" agree!

    4. Re:Why? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Heh - funny you should say that, since Fluke is a company which makes some damned fine (and unlike HP stuff, damned tough) electronics measurement equipment. :)

      IOW, this is a company whose primary biz isn't even related to the Internet (aside from diong so indirectly, by selling the tools to keep the telecom end of it going, I suppose).

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Why? by blowdart · · Score: 1

      Simple, as nerds we're avid sci-fi fans and conspiracy nuts. Did you miss STARGATE.COM in the list? I knew that program was part of a cover up.

    6. Re:Why? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      I noticed StarGate, and of course also the first ever (rather poorly spelled) porn site - siemens.com! Those guys obviously had great vision for the future, and from their lowly porn business beginnings, they must have managed to start a decent electronics company!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Why? by ecloud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In 1985 it would have been hard to envision the 'net as we know it now. It was nearly 10 years before the general public would discover the web. Why were these companies bothering? Mostly just for professional collaboration via telnet or ftp, right?

    8. Re:Why? by holyspidoo · · Score: 1

      A Reuters report is noting that the 'internet' is now more-or-less broken in.

    9. Re:Why? by 666999 · · Score: 0

      Why were these companies bothering? Mostly just for professional collaboration via telnet or ftp, right?

      Mostly email, I'm guessing.
    10. Re:Why? by pluther · · Score: 1

      And FTP.

      I remember downloading drivers from HP as early as 1989.

      After calling their technical support department and being given a location and temporary name and password, of course :)

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    11. Re:Why? by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember downloading drivers from HP as early as 1989.

      After calling their technical support department and being given a location and temporary name and password, of course

      Odd that they'd bother with access controls. Apple allowed anonymous FTP back then, with which you could download system-software updates, tech notes, and whatever else would've been on there at the time. ftp.apple.com is still up and running and still accepting anonymous logins, but most of its contents got moved to their website long ago.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    12. Re:Why? by fatmal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could be an urban legend, but I'd heard that a U.K. branch of Siemens got in trouble with the German head office people for not answering the phone correctly. The company 'standard' was "Siemens Berlin" for the berlin office - "Siemens Singapore" for Singapore etc.

      The branch office that got in trouble for not answering their phones correctly - Staines

    13. Re:Why? by webweave · · Score: 1

      I would be very surprised to see Microsoft on any list of firsts were innovation and forward thinking were required. They were so far behind (or lacked the talent) on the internet that they bought IE from Spyglass and it took until February 1996 for the release of IIS 1. Another similar point is microsoft.com isn't a class A address. They might have bought a Class A address space recently but they were defiantly not there in the beginning.

      -More people are forced to use Windows than any other operating system.

    14. Re:Why? by Thurc · · Score: 1

      I thought algore.com would have been on the list.

    15. Re:Why? by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      Why were these companies bothering? Mostly just for professional collaboration via telnet or ftp, right? Mostly email, I'm guessing. Collaboration kinda sorta, email no. UUCP based email worked well enough. The IT guys I talked to in late '87 and beyond (involved in converting the company to an internal company-wide network) were more concerned about propagation speed of Usenet. Before the spammers took over, it was a hugely valuable technical resource.

      Email between hybrid systems with bang ("!") addressing and modern domain addressing, which we had at TRW, was a serious pain at first. And yes, I did write a sendmail.cf by hand to do UUCP -> domain address translation - the horror, the horror.

      (I worked at TRW across the time they registered trw.com, one of the 1st 100 .coms)
    16. Re:Why? by KnuthKonrad · · Score: 1

      ftp.apple.com is still up and running and still accepting anonymous logins, [...]

      So is ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/

  2. Symbolics ... by foobsr · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... here is some pictures of a symbolics (those with the first domasin) machine for those who cannot imagine ...

    http://home.hakuhale.net/rbc/symbolics/20041113/20041113.html

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Symbolics ... by djones101 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where's the Windows key? *ducks the inevitable smack*

    2. Re:Symbolics ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Damn right, I can't see the reset button on the machine either.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Symbolics ... by rs79 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Symbolics wasn't actually first, DEC was. Brian Reid registered it in January (and still has the datestamped mail from the Internic) but they screwed up the dates in whois.

      Mitre.org was the fitst domain registered.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    4. Re:Symbolics ... by domatic · · Score: 1

      I don't see the Turbo button either.

    5. Re:Symbolics ... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      That also caught my eye. Given that Symbolics was a workstation vendor (as opposed to, say, Sun's "Network is the Computer" schtik) I would have expected them to be in the '87 second-tier like Apple.

      Another registration that caught my eye:

      PRIME.COM
      March 4 1987


      Doctor: "It's a PRIME Computer! The most sophisticated computer ever!"
      Rommana: "Ask it what to do with a woman Doctor."
      PRIME: "MARRY HER"
      Doctor: "Oh-"
      Rommana: "Clever PRIME"
      Doctor: "You can say that again..."
      Rommana: "Clever PRIME"
    6. Re:Symbolics ... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Man. That keyboard goes a long wat towards explaining Emacs ("Escape-Meta-Alt-Control-Shift"), doesn't it?

    7. Re:Symbolics ... by notthepainter · · Score: 1

      That's a Symbolic's machine from 2004. The ones from the early 80s stood taller than myself and had wirerapped boards.

    8. Re:Symbolics ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      "control alt plus" worked the turbo on my 486sx2. You didn't really need a button.

    9. Re:Symbolics ... by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, this machine probably violates some Nigerian keyboard patent.....

      Layne

    10. Re:Symbolics ... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Huh? Those are full height HDD's, no way is that from 2004! 1994 I might believe but I don't believe there were ANY manufacturers of full height HDD's by 2000.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Symbolics ... by domatic · · Score: 1

      Looks like THAT joke backfired :-).

    12. Re:Symbolics ... by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      It's a PRIME Computer! The most sophisticated computer ever!

      Ah, memories.

      Step 1: A CMDNC0

      Step 2: Replace any and all system commands with BASIC programs of your crafting.

      They used to have these at colleges all over the place in the US. I'd show up with my high school for some regional Model UN or Junior Achievement conference, wander around looking for a terminal that some 1st year compsci student had left logged in, and have the whole mainframe subverted within minutes of arrival. What a pain in the ass I was back then.

      Not a surprise, I suppose, that they've vanished.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    13. Re:Symbolics ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I though from your UID that you were going from the memory of a reference manual or something. I assumed the goos ol days have slid by before you were born.

    14. Re:Symbolics ... by Sigismundo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is kind of off-topic, but I once had an old vt220 terminal with a similar keyboard. I hooked it up to my Linux workstation's serial port. I was able to get a workable console without editing too many files, but what really surprised me was that many of the special keys along the top of the keyboard mapped to quite sensible emacs commands. There was "Do" key that mapped to M-x, "Find" mapped to C-s, "Remove" was C-d. I remember thinking that it was pretty cool so much of the legacy support is still there and works out of the box.

    15. Re:Symbolics ... by notthepainter · · Score: 1
      I was just repeating what the web page said...

      In any case, those are much smaller than the early 80s Symbolics machines.

    16. Re:Symbolics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitre Banisdurty? Er, "My turban is dirty?"

    17. Re:Symbolics ... by domatic · · Score: 1

      I actually possess a five digit uid but I haven't used it in years. I used to base my nym on my real name but that since that became a nasty proposition and I would prefer to be googleproof, I throw all of my nyms out and start fresh now and again. Obviously, I'm not a reigning personality anywhere ;-). Don't get me wrong, I'm not operating with a nymcluster. I just reboot my online persona now and again.

    18. Re:Symbolics ... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      The one that caught my eye was MENTAT. I'm assuming this was a Dune reference (Mentats in Frank Herbert's Dune series were humans trained to mimic computers).

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    19. Re:Symbolics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised no one mentioned that nordu.net predated mitre.org and symbolics.com.

    20. Re:Symbolics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I actually used Symbolics machines at Cycorp. It was 1996-1999, the Symbolics company was already dead, and the machines were falling apart, but we had dozens of them and were cannibalizing them for parts. I think they were about 10 years old. They were extreme high-end machines when they were built, and they were on par with desktop PCs in 1996, but specialized enough to make it worthwhile to use (and the older programmers didn't want to give them up). Native LISP processing, no protected memory (multi-threaded but all threads could access the same memory like a single process). They were the size of end tables and put out enormous amounts of heat. Also we only had 2 working monitors, and couldn't buy more - but they could be used via a remote X-windows connection.

    21. Re:Symbolics ... by 5pp000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Symbolics was basically out of business in about 1988. (A very small, as in no more than 2 full time people, company of that name existed until a year or two ago, but all they did with hardware was to maintain what had been manufactured by the original Symbolics.) 2004 is simply the year these photos were taken.

      You're right that the very first models -- the LM-2 and 3600 -- were refrigerator-sized, but it wasn't long before they also started building some smaller models. The 3640 was very roughly 20"w x 30"h x 36"d, and the 3610/3620, which used gate arrays, was about 10"w x 24"h x 30"d -- this is the model pictured in the center and center-right photos on that page. Finally, there was the Ivory chip, which powered the MacIvory coprocessor card (this is what's being shown in the upper left photo) and the XL and UX series. I still have a working XL-1200; it's about the size of two Sun "pizza boxes" stacked vertically, maybe 16" x 16" x 8"h. I believe this machine was out in 1987.

      (All dimensions guesstimated from memory -- figure a 20% margin of error.)

      --
      Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
    22. Re:Symbolics ... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I should have known better, I did the same thing around 1999 or so. I had different reasons but it was for the same effect.

    23. Re:Symbolics ... by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      I had one of those Symbolics machnes in my office for a while. Notice it has multiple windows and a three button mouse. At that time in the PC world people wre using the 286 and DOS. Microsoft might have had a product called "Windows" but if they did it had not yet caught on. The symbolics machine was great. I would not mind having a modernized version of one nw. Although I doubt they would sell to day. After all how many users today can use a keyboard, let a lone use Lisp.

    24. Re:Symbolics ... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Why does they keyboard in the upper-right picture have an Apple logo in the lower-left corner? Looks just like the Apple Extended Keyboard I'm typing on at the moment, in fact (complete with the older ADB mouse).

    25. Re:Symbolics ... by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Symbolics was basically out of business in about 1988


      As a hardware company. They had some serious comp sci types in their consulting practice that continued on until around the mid 90s. One of the principle consultants explained their practice this way to me: "We figure out how to do things that others have tried to do and failed at -- repeatedly." Ironically, this skillset only applied to computer science problems. They didn't know how to make a sustainable business out of having a bunch of hugely smart guys on the payroll. The problem is when one of those guys leaves, he leaves a big hole.

      If this had been a few years later, things might have been different. The Internet created a whole new set of practical problems for serious computer science firepower. But maybe not. Ironically, the whole dot com thing largely passed the academically fed Boston area informatics scene by. People were more accustomed to the world of cold war defense contracting and big, slow moving companies than the down and dirty world of e-commerce. Even Facebook, which pretty much would have been nothing without the founders' Harvard student connection, moved out to California as soon as possible so the VCs could keep an eye on them.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:Symbolics ... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I assume it didn't ship with the LCD it's show with in a few of the pictures? xD

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    27. Re:Symbolics ... by Discordantus · · Score: 1

      Because a couple of those pictures are of a (very old) macintosh. Running System 6 (Mac OS 6), if my eyes (and those scrollbars!) don't deceive me. The Mac seems to be running some Symbolics software, as well, and sporting a keyboard template for it.

  3. I remember when.... by superid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of my very first introductions to enterprise networking and internet was back in about 1988. I was friends with the admin of a Vax cluster at a progressive little company. He had printed out "the host table" that he downloaded each night. It probably wasn't more than 80 or 100 sheets of fanfold greenbar. I remember browsing it a bit and the only two that I can remember were burlingtoncoatfactory.com and lucasarts.com (or was it lucasfilms?)

    anyway....get off my lawn!

    1. Re:I remember when.... by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know the problem with people who have been around technology for a long time is when they go senile, their babble will change but most people probably won't be able to tell the difference.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    2. Re:I remember when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the problem?

    3. Re:I remember when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the problem with people who haven't been around technology for long enough is when some old timer recounts a story and they treat it and the person as if they're insane. Still, most of 'em think their ideas are new. Bless.

    4. Re:I remember when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and lucasarts.com (or was it lucasfilms?)
      Back then, it would have been LucasGames (or "LucasFilm Games"). It didn't become LucasArts until the 90s.
    5. Re:I remember when.... by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know the problem with people who have been around technology for a long time is when they go senile, their babble will change but most people probably won't be able to tell the difference

      Why you young insensitive clod, I'm gonna sma.....ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz whut?

    6. Re:I remember when.... by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      One thing I remember about our 11/750 is we had a teleprinter attached to it - together with some wonderful, pre-Ethernet gizmos called 'Infaplugs'. Our Infaplug network comprised a ring of TV coax round the building and the plugs gave you a serial port wherever you fitted one of their sockets on the ring.

      Anyway, one night the ring was hit by a glitch which reset the plugs back to factory defaults - this turned on automatic echoing, which led to the classic situation of the VAX sending 'Login', to which the plugs replied 'Login', so the Vax asked for 'Password' - to which the plugs replied 'password' - which led to 'incorrect username or password'...etc...

      The end result was a whole box of listing paper dumped into a massive pile by the teleprinter reporting the multiple invalid logins all night.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    7. Re:I remember when.... by benplaut · · Score: 1

      and the sad part is how easy it is to fix. Just ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a year of your life away!

    8. Re:I remember when.... by geobeck · · Score: 1

      ...when they go senile, their babble will change but most people probably won't be able to tell the difference.

      That's easy. If they can say "VAX" and "progressive" in the same sentence, they're senile... or at least really, really old. :p

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  4. Internet connections by stoney27 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yea it took two years, but these where internet connections. Most companies where not thinking about connecting there computers to the outside world unless they where doing some research or involved with networking in some way. There was not let's put out our "Marketing message on the Internet", most of it was he we where working with this in School and we could use this technology to share information or for sending email.

    -S

    --

    It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
    but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
    1. Re:Internet connections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I suspect that most of these companies are on the list because they were engaged as defense contractors at the time.

    2. Re:Internet connections by jcorno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It looks like they went in groups, too. IBM, Sun, Intel, and TI all in one day. 3Com, Tandy, Unisys, and AMD on another. It probably wasn't an individual decision for each company. It'd be too much of a coincidence.

    3. Re:Internet connections by jcorno · · Score: 2, Informative

      That wasn't entirely true. It was IBM-Sun, then Intel-TI. That actually still makes sense. AMD was on a different day from the other three, though. That's what I get for not double-checking before posting.

    4. Re:Internet connections by raju1kabir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not like they went to the Yahoo! Small Business website and registered the domains on their credit cards for $7.99.

      Whoever was maintaining the canonical copy of the hosts file had plenty of other stuff to do, this was just a minor chore for them. So it's reasonable to think that updates would get bunched up and made whenever he happened to have some free time.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    5. Re:Internet connections by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Which brings up my question. What was the cost of registering a .com domain back in the early days of the internet?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:Internet connections by raju1kabir · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was free for a long time. Then they started charging a one-time administration fee (the amount of which I've long since forgotten). And finally we came to the annual-fee arrangement in place now.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    7. Re:Internet connections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two turtle doves, a wreath of Apple Blossom Roses, and a cup of blood from your first born spilt upon the steps of DARPA. Or, so the legend goes...

    8. Re:Internet connections by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      but wasn't a requirement of a domain name that you actually had an Internet connection at one time? There wasn't the concept of a hosting company, virtual servers or a lot of the stuff we take for granted today.

    9. Re:Internet connections by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Many organisations had domain names but no live internet connection. A typical case was the organisation that had email addresses, but received mail via periodic polling over dialup. I remember when we got our email 4 times a day, like having the postman coming down our street.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    10. Re:Internet connections by cvos · · Score: 1

      All the major computer manufacturers are listed...with one notable exception: Microsoft. MS did not have their domain name while its competitors did. Who said Microsoft nearly missed the internet?

      --
      I'm just here for the sigs
    11. Re:Internet connections by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      All the major computer manufacturers are listed...with one notable exception: Microsoft.

      And since when is Microsoft a "computer manufacturer" (much less a "major" one)?

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    12. Re:Internet connections by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      "All the major computer manufacturers are listed...with one notable exception: Microsoft. MS did not have their domain name while its competitors did."

      Microsoft?? First off, MS is an OS, not a computer manufacturer. Secondly, Microsoft didn't know the internet even existed until 1995!

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    13. Re:Internet connections by LarryWake · · Score: 1

      $50, IIRC.

      I only recently noticed that I'm immortalized in RFC 1117, merely for having established csun.edu (apparently sometime between August 1987 and August 1989, since I'm not in RFC 1020). It also looks like RFC 1166 in July 1990 was the last time the complete list of Internet numbers was published as a static document.
      -LW89

    14. Re:Internet connections by cvos · · Score: 1

      sorry: computer vendor. sheesh MS should be an honorary computer manufacturer by proxy, as they dictate what hardware is created and sold by the Dell's of the world.

      --
      I'm just here for the sigs
    15. Re:Internet connections by LarryWake · · Score: 1

      Oh, forgot to mention that the bigger deal at that time was not the cost, but justifying why our 15,000 student university should be assigned a class B number rather than a class C number. After all, there were significantly fewer than 255 networked systems on campus at the time -- probably fewer than 25. Credit my incredible prescience for guessing that might not be the case forever.

    16. Re:Internet connections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft?? First off, MS is an OS, not a computer manufacturer.
      Actually MS is a disease, not an OS. But thanks for playing!
  5. First virtual real-estate goldrush by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The registering and selling-on of domain names in the mid-to-late 90's made some serious money for a few brave entrepreneurs. sex.com is the classic case, although early domain-name squatting on big business names brought in easy bucks for some.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  6. This was the 80s by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1985, first domain. I'm fairly sure a few posting here weren't even born, most of the rest had other things on their mind than DNS problems (my main concerns was that I was going to a different school then and had to find new friends).

    The internet was but a dream. It was something that a few research companies, some universities and maybe even the ARPA cared about. Nobody had internet at home. If anything, we had modems to dial into BBSs.

    Does it make sense to register a COM domain? As in Commercial?

    Some companies realized that this will be the future (and I'm honestly surprised to see Siemens on the list, they must've had better and more visionary people in their upper echelons back then), and they registered their trademark as a com domain rather than fighting a lengthy battle with domain grabbers as many have done later. Cisco and a few others on the list make sense, since they are pretty tightly coupled with the success of the internet, being more or less networking companies.

    But, bluntly, why should any flower shop or manufacturer of beer bottles register "his" domain in the 80s? It was hardly their topic, and hardly any sensible way to sell their goods without an audience willing and able to buy via the net.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, talk about "other concerns". I began elementary school in the fall of 1985 (around here, and in those days, the school year started in late september).

    2. Re:This was the 80s by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Back in those days there was a widespread belief (correct or not) that the internet could not be use for commercial purposes (the main argument being the US government's funding of the backbone). Sure, there was a "COM" TLD, but that was really just a basket for outfits that didn't fall into one of the main TLDs: GOV (government agencies), NET (infrastructure providers), EDU (colleges), ORG (non-profits), and MIL (military). If a commercial entity wanted on the net, they were welcome, but the assumption among most netizens at the time was that they were doing it to participate in the net's non-commercial activities.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:This was the 80s by ajs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1985, first domain. Which is kind of odd, since, by 1987 when I got to college, just about every technical company and University that I had regular dealings with had a domain name. It goes to show how fast it scaled.

      Does it make sense to register a COM domain? As in Commercial? Actually, in the beginning, ".com" was a dumping ground for those commercial organizations that were considered "just barely worthy." The perception was that the Internet was for the .mil and .edu crowd who were the founders of the Apranet. .com was created for those companies that wanted to be able to do business with the Internet-savvy types in the universities and military via email or offer ftp access to software updates and the like. There was no real sense that .com was for commercial exploitation of the Net.

      But, bluntly, why should any flower shop or manufacturer of beer bottles register "his" domain in the 80s? It was hardly their topic, and hardly any sensible way to sell their goods without an audience willing and able to buy via the net. And really, they should not have. They had no business (I mean that literally) using the Internet of that day. In the 90s, with the advent of the Web, everything changed. But remember that the Net predates the Web, and back in those days it wasn't really a place that flower shops could have gotten anything from.

    4. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir lose. .com was an all purpose domain for COMmon domains. It had nothing to do with commerce. .net for ISPs and NETwork infrastructure, .org for non-profit ORGanizations, .edu for EDUcational institutions, .gov for GOVernment stuff, and .mil for MILitary domains. Country codes came later, I think .us is really under the same or similar rules as .gov.

      Remember your history. The Internet came about as a means to share information between Universities and governments. The commecial use of the Internet came much later.

    5. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in those days there was a widespread belief (correct or not) that the internet could not be used for commercial purposes [...] I think not.
    6. Re:This was the 80s by Hymer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason for those .com registrations back then is not what you assume... the reason was the need for human readable e-mail addresses. Most corporations wanted quick and easy way to exchange mails with .edu and .mil.
      You could either send snail-mail, call the university (or Pentagon) and hope somebody knew where the person you wanted to speak with were... or you could register on the net and send him an e-mail... and remember, this was the pre-cellular era.
      DEC was btw. very much involved in the whole (d)arpanet project (many universities used DEC computers to power the net back then).
      IBM was big iron for big business and tried btw. to build a global network based on SNA (read your SNA manual again, if you don't belive me).
      ...and yes you are right... the only reason for a pizzeria in Palo Alto to have a registered domain was for all those guys from HP, DEC and Cisco to order pizza by email... daily... tons of pizza every day... well, somebody just didn't see that option back then.

    7. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think not. Therefor, you are not!
    8. Re:This was the 80s by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Back in those days there was a widespread belief (correct or not) that the internet could not be use for commercial purposes (the main argument being the US government's funding of the backbone). Sure, there was a "COM" TLD, but that was really just a basket for outfits that didn't fall into one of the main TLDs: GOV (government agencies), NET (infrastructure providers), EDU (colleges), ORG (non-profits), and MIL (military). If a commercial entity wanted on the net, they were welcome, but the assumption among most netizens at the time was that they were doing it to participate in the net's non-commercial activities.

      Yep. The first time I connected to the Internet (through Delphi - anybody else old enough to remember that one?) I had to sign a usage agreement. It basically stated that commercial activity was strictly prohibited. The only allowed activity was education, research, government, and "incidental personal use".

      At the time, the entire thing was government funded.

      This was way before HTML and NCSA Mosaic. The "cool" browsing application was gopher. Direct connections! Links from one site to another! Wow!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    9. Re:This was the 80s by encoderer · · Score: 5, Funny

      "back in those days it wasn't really a place that flower shops could have gotten anything from."

      That was until FTP was discovered.

      The Flower Transfer Protocol changed the internet forever.

    10. Re:This was the 80s by TheMCP · · Score: 1

      Why not? One of the domains on that list was privately owned. *Somebody* who wasn't a corporation was forward thinking enough to have registered one of the first 100 domains.

    11. Re:This was the 80s by KodaK · · Score: 1

      Ha. Here's a link to something I wrote back then. I "hoep" you enjoy it.

      http://tinyurl.com/2knjba

      Here's the text:

      VATICAN --

      Reports coming in from all over the globe are confirming it as true.
      Zombies posting from "delphi.com" are taking over Usenet and are start-
      ing to get a firm grip on the Internet proper.

      These "posters" are filling up available bandwidth with rehashed arguments,
      flames, extraneous punctuation, inability to quote, and bad sentance struc-
      tures. They are unstopable short of putting "delphi.com" in ones kill file.

      It is belived that Delphi corp. is unaware of their users actions and that
      the actions themselves are caused by some lone hacker sending subliminal
      messages to users at Delphi.com. Such as:

                      Hbi, Chris55!

                                      Heow are ysou? I'tm, fiune, so farp. Whein cand I see
                      you again?

      Users everywhere should be aware that this could start happening at
      any site.

      A suggested course of action is:

                      Do NOT put "delphi.com" in your killfile -- there may be some
                      intelligence left at delphi and we need to rescue it if we can,
                      killfileing "delphi.com" would also encourage the hacker to in-
                      filtrate another site.

                      Do NOT reply to dumb Delphi zombie posts. This only wastes
                      more bandwidth on the same crap that was posted origionaly.

                      DO reply to any posts from Delphi that have actual informational
                      content. This would exclude any posts containing "!!!1", "......",
                      "d00d!", "u st00pid", "get a job", "l8r", "l8er", etc, ad. nausium.
      --
                      Jason Balicki | ko...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | Tao. Tao.
                                            Taylight come an' we wan' go home.

      --
      --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    12. Re:This was the 80s by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      But, bluntly, why should any flower shop or manufacturer of beer bottles register "his" domain in the 80s? It was hardly their topic, and hardly any sensible way to sell their goods without an audience willing and able to buy via the net. And really, they should not have. They had no business (I mean that literally) using the Internet of that day. In the 90s, with the advent of the Web, everything changed. But remember that the Net predates the Web, and back in those days it wasn't really a place that flower shops could have gotten anything from. They could have advertised/taken orders on...gopher! :)
      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    13. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. Recall that in this time period the core networks were restricted to NON-commercial use. Selling pizza on the net was forbidden. It's not just that someone "didn't see the option".

      Shortly after the commercial use restriction was dropped (early 90s), I recall being dumbfounded when one of the first commercial sites on the brand new World Wide Whatever was in fact a Pizza Hut in ?Santa Cruz?. You could in fact order a pizza. This was the Very Early Days, though - I believe that the pizza place called back every order to confirm that it was real, because so many people were astonished at the concept they were filling out the form just thinking that it was a joke.

      Aah, the bad old days.

    14. Re:This was the 80s by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      And yet Flowers By Irene were registered much later.

    15. Re:This was the 80s by Hollinger · · Score: 1

      The Flower Transfer Protocol changed the internet forever.


      Someone beat you to that joke nearly 10 years ago. ;-)
    16. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1985, first domain.

      Which is kind of odd, since, by 1987 when I got to college, just about every technical company and University that I had regular dealings with had a domain name. It goes to show how fast it scaled.

      I remember quite a bit about 1985 et al, and even those with just wikimemory of the time know about Apple II in schools and the beginning of Macs & Amigas & Lions & Tigers Ohno, but danged if I can remember or look-up what a typical modem was then, or what it cost.

      Little help there? What were those connectivity milestones for 1985 through 1990?
    17. Re:This was the 80s by lamona · · Score: 1
      In fact, until 1994 commercial activity, that is selling or advertising on the Net, was forbidden by the "appropriate use policy" (AUP). This was based on the fact that some amount of the funding for the Net, by then primarily the backbone, was (US) federally funded. It was Clinton and Gore who "freed" the net from US funding and allowed it to become commercial. Thus, the first commercial spam which appeared on Usenet shortly after the ban was lifted, in April of 1994.

      The early dot coms that I remember were providing software downloads or tech support over the Net, but not products or advertising. People got very upset if someone from a company mentioned one of their products in a Usenet post, which was the main "social network" of the day.

      Institutions like universities also had AUPs. Some of these were quite draconian, basically threatening to take away your Net access if you used the network for anything but scientific purposes. The NSFNet AUP stated:

      UNACCEPTABLE USES:
      1. Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports events, and so on) or use by for-profit institutions unless covered by the General Principle or as a specifically acceptable use.
      2. Extensive use for private or personal business.
      What was acceptable was:

      6. Announcements of new products or services for use in research or instruction, but not advertising of any kind.

      Plus, of course, we all had to walk to the Internet in the snow and punch cards with our bare hands. Those were tough times.

      --
      I just read /. for the amusing .sigs
    18. Re:This was the 80s by warrigal · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "tried to build... a global network"? Are you saying I imagined VNET? All those PROFS notes to the labs in Rochester and Boca were imaginary? That I browsed the TEXT and IBMPC forums from Oz in my dreams?
      I'd be willing to bet that it took many, many years before the Internet passed VNET in size. VNET was huge.
      There was a gateway to the Internet in the late 80s from VNET, somewhere in NY state. I had to convince my manager to sign off on the (free) access for "business reasons". How else could I get to comp.sys.apple2 from the 3278 on my office desk?

    19. Re:This was the 80s by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, it was free to register so why not? I don't think I registered my first domain until about 1992 though. It was for a text-based MUD. Cool huh? ;)

      If only I'd had the vision, and the cash, to patent the stuff I worked on back then. I could have sued many a successful online business for stealing my idea. Ooooh well. I'd rather write code than sue anyway.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    20. Re:This was the 80s by graviplana · · Score: 0

      I had a Delphi shell account in 1990. I was the first kid on my block actually. At that point, email between BBSs was sort of haphazard and the Shell account was über. I remember the good old days of GOPHER, WAIS, FTP access to MTV where Adam Curry would upload files himself and trying to see what was at the VAX at McMurdo in Antarctica. The Good Ole' Days. /sigh

      --
      "Time is nothing; timing is everything."
    21. Re:This was the 80s by Hymer · · Score: 1

      Nope, that is true... but the long term success of the project has been somehow limited (which is quite obvious since we are the only 2 persons here to remember it).

    22. Re:This was the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make that 3. though I remember it as SLUGNET :p

    23. Re:This was the 80s by encoderer · · Score: 1

      I remember a neighbor had, IIRC, a 2400 baud that was the type that you set the receiver upon. Not sure on cost, but considering the IBM XT w/o Hard Disk, a couple hundred K of ram, and dual 5.25" floppy drives would run you $2500 in '85 ($4500 in 2006 dollars), I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

  7. What? by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Funny

    No ASCIIPORN.COM?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. SCO before Microsoft by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder when Microsoft finally got on board? Damn, I shoulda squatted!!!

    --
    Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    1. Re:SCO before Microsoft by billy8988 · · Score: 0

      100 dot coms ought to be enough for anybody.

    2. Re:SCO before Microsoft by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Yes, I also found funny that while IBM, Sun, Apple, Adobe all made in that list, our visionary Bill Gates and his "road ahead" failed to be there.

      But I guess there was a MICROS~1 on a SMB/NetBIOS domain controller on an IPX/SPX network all along ;)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:SCO before Microsoft by blackjackshellac · · Score: 1

      Microsoft was "just" starting to realize that people were networking computers in 1986/87. Ahhh, those were the days. It was so blissfully quiet on the Internet back in the day. It was bliss, I tell ya, pure bliss.

      --
      Salut,

      Jacques

    4. Re:SCO before Microsoft by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      But I guess there was a MICROS~1 on a SMB/NetBIOS domain controller on an IPX/SPX network all along ;)

      Actually, Microsoft probably hooked up their Xenix machines to the Internet for better inter-company and company-university communications. Believe it or not, Microsoft couldn't really run itself on DOS machines at the time. Xenix was used to provide the various networked services (like email) necessary for day-to-day operations.
    5. Re:SCO before Microsoft by nerdyalien · · Score: 0

      From what I heard, neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft found internet to be a boomer at any point of the history. This is why it wasn't integrated to early Windows versions, even late as Win 3.1

      Anyway.. only now they are taking most of its advantage over internet, including WGA, updates etc.

    6. Re:SCO before Microsoft by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, MS transferred Xenix to the Santa Cruz Operation (old SCO) for a 25% ownership of SCO. SCO renamed it SCO UNIX, then SCO OpenServer. Somewhere between, old SCO split into Tarantella and Caldera, which then renamed itself to the SCO Group (new, evil SCOX), who was recently involved in a minor copyright dispute with Novell.

      Hmmm......

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    7. Re:SCO before Microsoft by PPH · · Score: 1
      I think Gates was side-tracked by Microsoft's efforts to factor large prime numbers.

      I find it interesting that, even while Gates admitted finally 'getting' the Internet (at about the same time "The Road Ahead" was published), his efforts to push a proprietary network "MSN" continued for a number of years. According to an acquaintance of mine working at Microsoft, with several partnerships with telco and CATV broadband providers, and some strange hooks built into various versions of Windows, Microsoft has toyed with the idea of taking its customers 'private' through about 2004 (when I spoke with her about it).

      It would be interesting to see when Microsoft first obtained its .com domain name, but I doubt this had any relationship to its finally admitting that the Internet was in fact going to be 'the' network.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:SCO before Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft registered on 02-May-1991.

    9. Re:SCO before Microsoft by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

      I think MS did ok despite not getting on board sooner. Just remember, Apple could have been Microsoft if they hadn't insisted on being the all-in-one-box vendor.

    10. Re:SCO before Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      microsoft fully expected to be a TLD, so it would have been unnecessary to be a .com
      </tongueincheek>

    11. Re:SCO before Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not bloody likely.

      Microsoft succeeded in grabbing their monopoly position because they became the de-facto standard platform (MS-DOS) for the PC. After that, it was a matter of preventing others from being too compatible as well as tying their office product offerings to their own operating system.

      Yeah, they had some initial competition (Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect on the office suite side, DR-DOS etc. and eventually OS/2 on the Windows-side), but in the end, Microsoft holding both the operating system and office suite is one of the main reasons (OS/2 was also kind of late) for their position since then.

  9. Symbolics! by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Wow, Symbolics was ahead of the curve. Too bad their hardware cost and arm and a leg.

    I don't remember the fist web site I visited - but I remember it was using Lynx. I used gopher all the time, though. Turbogopher ran a lot better on the Mac LC3s at the University computer lab than the pre-beta of Mosaic.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Symbolics! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      webex on OS/2 here. Gopher, of course, before that. Actually, my first experience with gopher was on Penn State's mainframe, as was my first experience with usenet and FTP servers.

    2. Re:Symbolics! by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

      I remember Gopher. I used to be part of a BBS in Boston called Argus, which later my membership got 'sold' as Argus went tits up. The new BBS, Channel One, was touting its 'internet accessibility'. I went into local Channel One chat rooms to figure out just what the hell the internet was. Someone pointed me to the Gopher, IRC and FTP utilities through the BBS. Thought it was okay. The problem was service discovery, which was pretty weak back then. You sort of had to know what you were looking for.

      There was also a WWW portal later. You'd minimize whatever terminal software you were using and use WinSock to get your browser working.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    3. Re:Symbolics! by Symbolis · · Score: 1

      Just for the record(because I know you were all wondering), I've no relation to Symbolics.

      I do want their domain, though. Bastards!

    4. Re:Symbolics! by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Lynx... Bah.. In my time we had to e-mail the CERN e-mail to web gateway and wait 4 hours for the next UUCP exchange before we got our webpages back :)

      Life sucked before I went to university in '94 and finally got an actual internet connection instead of just mail exchange...

    5. Re:Symbolics! by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Actually, strike that, I did have access to Lynx running on Linux 0.99 on an ISP's login server from '93. Before that, though, it was the pain of waiting for UUCP exchanges at my local BBS. Luckily gopher, archie, ftp and web e-mail gateways were still widespread.

      Anyone remember when Wired got online, and launched the HotWired e-zine

    6. Re:Symbolics! by radish · · Score: 1

      I remember the first actual web site I visited was http://www.shu.ac.uk/. I was with a friend in their CS lab using an early (early!) build of Mosaic on a black & white terminal sometime around 1993. I remember thinking "this will never take off" as I watched the page with it's single, grainy, image load in around 2 minutes (and this was from their LAN!). I was perfectly happy with gopher and *ahem* FSP.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    7. Re:Symbolics! by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Wow, Symbolics was ahead of the curve. Too bad their hardware cost and arm and a leg.

      I don't remember the fist web site I visited - but I remember it was using Lynx. I used gopher all the time, though. Turbogopher ran a lot better on the Mac LC3s at the University computer lab than the pre-beta of Mosaic. PLEASE tell me that's a typo and not a Freudian slip... *shudders at thought of ASCII fist*
  10. the meaning of TLDS by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure when the net was young that .orgs had to be non profit, and .nets were ISPs, but all of that seems to have totally disappeared. I also think its a bit sad that we have .co.uk and so on, but nobody used any .us or .usa names. .com became the default URL that you had to have, with everything else being cheap and forgettable. People can tell my site is UK site and that I'm a UK company, but US companies are completely invisible, with the rush for everyone to be dotcom. I'm sure a lot of UK customers are automatically pleasantly disposed towards my company when they realise I'm a bit 'local' to them, but the same thing isn't an option in the US.
    Given the ubiquity of bookmarks, hyperlinks and google, do we even need catchy domain names any more? I might have paid over the odds many years ago to get an easily remembered one, but now? who cares, people will find you with google anyway right?

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:the meaning of TLDS by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a lot of UK customers are automatically pleasantly disposed towards my company when they realise I'm a bit 'local' to them, but the same thing isn't an option in the US Sure it is, the yanks just use .com. ;-)
      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    2. Re:the meaning of TLDS by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      I might have paid over the odds many years ago to get an easily remembered one, but now? who cares, people will find you with google anyway right?

      "I need a new basketball. I know! I'll order it from that sports site I went to a few months ago, they were pretty cool. Damn, I didn't bookmark it. What was it... qwomnx.com, something stupid like that. Ah well, I'll Google for 'sports', I'm sure it'll turn up."

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:the meaning of TLDS by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a lot of UK customers are automatically pleasantly disposed towards my company when they realise I'm a bit 'local' to them, but the same thing isn't an option in the US.
      Yes it is. The problem is that .us didn't have open registration until a few years ago. It was reserved for the federal, state, and local governments.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:the meaning of TLDS by dtobias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They allowed other registrations at hierarchical levels of .us, like yourname.yourcity.yourstate.us (e.g., yourname.miami.fl.us).

      --
      --Dan
      Web Tips
    5. Re:the meaning of TLDS by Pope · · Score: 1

      Given the ubiquity of bookmarks, hyperlinks and google, do we even need catchy domain names any more?
      And where exactly would those bookmarks & hyperlinks be pointing to? Using search engines, especially Google, is an even worse suggestion since we've all seen how searches can be gamed to spam sites.
      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:the meaning of TLDS by Single+GNU+Theory · · Score: 1

      True story from a company I used to work for: The president wants to buy some sporting goods online. There is a chain of sporting goods stores named "Dick's Sporting Goods". "Dick's" takes a lot more space on the signs than "Sporting Goods", so everyone just calls it Dick's in the course of normal conversation.

      Anyway, he attempts to do some online shopping at work and instead of Googling for the correct URL, he just types in dicks.com.

      D'oh!

      --
      Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
  11. Be glad you didn't. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    MS doesn't buy. MS litigates.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Be glad you didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      MS-DOS, FoxPro, PowerPoint, Direct3D, Flight Simulator, SourceSafe, FrontPage, Visio, Hotmail, ...

      Besides Excel/Word, is there anything Microsoft that Microsoft actually wrote?

    2. Re:Be glad you didn't. by DuctTape · · Score: 1

      MS doesn't buy. MS litigates.

      It doesn't innovate either.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    3. Re:Be glad you didn't. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only because they couldn't legally browbeat those companies into surrendering their property.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Hmm what's missing? by Pontiac · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Wow 2 years and not one person thought to register a porn site?
    What am I thinking.. it's 1987.. ASCII porn never really caught on.

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    1. Re:Hmm what's missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing. First 2 years and microsoft.com is not registered! That is very telling.

  13. How much did it cost? by suso · · Score: 2

    Just curious, anyone know how much it cost to register a domain back at the beginning?

    1. Re:How much did it cost? by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      I don't know about 1987 but in 95 it was $100 for 2 years

      I found this on Wikipedia.. It says the same price was in effect in 1985

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    2. Re:How much did it cost? by Salamander · · Score: 2, Informative
      Read it again; that was 1995, not 1985. Domains were free for a long time.

      In 1995 the NSF authorized NSI to begin charging registrants (of .org and .net as well as .com) an annual fee, for the first-time since its inception.
      (The grammar error is the responsibility of the wikidork who made the entry.) I wasn't in early enough to get a domain for free, but I do have one for which I paid a one-time fee.
      --
      Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
    3. Re:How much did it cost? by ThreeGigs · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was free at the very beginning. Mostly because it was all handwritten on paper then typed into a text file. Registering went something like "Hey Jack, can ya write me into the hosts file?"

    4. Re:How much did it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $0. Zip. Butkus. Absolutely free of charge. Back in the day, SRI-NIC (the original central registrar) did not levy any charge for domain registration.

    5. Re:How much did it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was an electronic form, a text file you'd download from sri-nic.arpa (later nic.ddn.mil), fill in the blanks and email back to sri-nic.

      For all that, it wasn't all that far removed from "Hey Jack".

    6. Re:How much did it cost? by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 1

      Nothing until the beginning of August, 1995- a friend registered hazmat.com for me at the end of July, 1995 (and it was free). Tried to register the .net, but at that point, you couldn't register a .net unless you were an infrastructure provider.

    7. Re:How much did it cost? by RevWaldo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not so much a cost issue but up until the mid-90's the PITA factor was a major hit in setting up a domain. No hosting services, so you'd need your own server. Private lines were way expensive and difficult to get set up with the phone company. No DSL so you'd need ISDN (56k! Wicked fast!) or bone up for a T1 or partial T1 which could run you $1000/month easy. Not to mention all the paperwork you'd have to submit to interNIC, etc. The best revenge on all the domain squatting is that all the "now a household word" domains use words no one would think were valuable - yahoo, google, etc ad infinitum. Have you had a need to visit computer.com? telephone.com? television.com?

    8. Re:How much did it cost? by simong · · Score: 1

      It was still free in late 1994/early 1995 when I registered lotech.com but I seem to recall charges came in in about May-June 1995, and a .com was $100 for two years. Being a fledgling sysadmin at an ISP was quite handy back then.

    9. Re:How much did it cost? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      I registered herald.net back in July of 1996 (currently idling if anyone has an interesting project, but that's another story) for my first company, a web-host. One of the first, actually, and a ton of fun writing things like patches to WU-FTPd to handle ftp@yourdomain.com logins... ah, yes. If I'd had a tenth the business savvy back then than a small potato has now... water under the bridge. But anyway, I remember having to fill out the justification form as well to get the .net registered, especially since I wasn't planning on doing dial-up (maybe in the back of my mind, but not my primary focus and it never actually happened).

      Even more ironic was the fact that I was annoyed that it took me 10 minutes to find a domain I liked that wasn't taken, and that I had to "settle" for herald.net... Of course, research was through whois before submitting the form through (IIRC) email...

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    10. Re:How much did it cost? by Alascom · · Score: 1

      There was no charge to register a domain back then. I think it remained free until about 1994 or so.

    11. Re:How much did it cost? by Lee+Cremeans · · Score: 1

      I remember those days...I thought it would be so cool to get a T1 into my house and sell people dialup accounts back then (keep in mind I was only 18 in 1995). I've also heard of a few people that ran their domains off semi-dedicated dialup using Linux or FreeBSD (I did something similar for a few years before I got DSL and a homeip.net address in 2000).

      Also, you could do 128k on ISDN if your ISP did bonded D channels...back when my employer got on the net in 1996, they had an Ascend Pipeline ISDN modem/router and bonded-D dialup to a local ISP in Falls Church.

  14. Where's the last bunch? by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Funny

    This 'first 100 .com' stuff is all nice and dandy, but what I want to see is the LAST one hundred .com domains.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Where's the last bunch? by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      but what I want to see is the LAST one hundred .com domains.

      Why? Do you need more V1@grA?
      --
      Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
    2. Re:Where's the last bunch? by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      At least we know clownpenis.fart will probably be on the list.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    3. Re:Where's the last bunch? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      but what I want to see is the LAST one hundred .com domains.

      As in, the last EVER? That would be a pretty interesting list!

      The last as in most recent? That's easy: [insert output of script for generating 100 random permutations of "ch34pv14gra.com" here]

      Actually, now that I think about it, there's a good chance that the former will be the same as the latter as the deluge of viagra spam finally causes the net to collapse...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Where's the last bunch? by dtobias · · Score: 1

      That's not a .com domain; it's in the .fart TLD.

      --
      --Dan
      Web Tips
  15. Al Gore? by scifiman · · Score: 0

    Wow, the man that "invented" the Internet didn't have one of the first 100? Go figure!

  16. Checklist... by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excerpt from checklist for when I get my time machine working:

    #10: Visit 1985 and buy up all 18,252 .COM domain names consisting of 2 and 3 letters.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Checklist... by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that before or after you become your own grandfather?

      --
      Life would be easier if I had the source code.
    2. Re:Checklist... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      Excerpt from checklist for when I get my time machine working: There was a story in Analog (back in the '80s, iirc) about an author with a time machine who went back to the late fifties and made a name writing political fiction ("Watergate") and near-term sci-fi ("Apollo 13"). There was also a book ("Rewind"? "Replay"?) in which a person writes blockbuster screenplays by stealing all of Spielberg's scripts.

      Me, I'd just buy stock in select companies and invest the winnings in politicians just starting their political careers.
      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    3. Re:Checklist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up until 1995 you didn't have to pay for domains. You just submitted an email form to internic and they processed it in a queue (that could take weeks). If you got approved, you got the domain. Of course there was a "purpose" field on the form, and you couldn't have multiple domains with the same purpose.

      Since there were humans processing all the domains back then, you would never have been able to get all the great domains.

      dom

    4. Re:Checklist... by kindbud · · Score: 1

      #10: Visit 1985 and buy up all 18,252 .COM domain names consisting of 2 and 3 letters.

      It was actually quite a bit harder to get a dot-com in 1985 than in 2005. In 1985 you had to convince a panel of academics that your application was related to network research. No amount of money could buy you one back then.

      You want to go back to around 1991 or thereabouts to get in before the dot-com landrush, when registration was opened to all comers and free of charge, but no commercial interests really knew about it yet.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    5. Re:Checklist... by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      I think back then before virtual domains and such you'd need 18,000 IP Addresses to go with your 18,000 domain names.

    6. Re:Checklist... by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
  17. OMG -- Tandy! by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    1985 -- I was in my freshman year of college, with high hopes and fond memories (not) of my high school computer math and statistics class, in which we sat in front of TRS-80's networked to a printer. Every day our class president would write a little basic program to print "(teacher's name) is a dick" over and over. The teacher would notice that the printer was running and would dutifully walk over to it, examine the output, and say "Heyyyyy.... ummmm," and that's when the class president would restart his machine to destroy the evidence. Good times. My, how networking and the high school tech experience has changed.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    1. Re:OMG -- Tandy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tandy had quite the Unix following back in the 80's. See Frank Durda's History of the Assembly Language Development System for a few details.

  18. Toad.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw toad.com on the list, and was wondering if Dave Troy of Atari lore was the guy who first registered that domain. He and Jennifer were ahead of the curve on many counts, so it wouldn't surprise me.

  19. Ugh, my eyes. by glindsey · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe that website was made in 1985, and hasn't been updated since.

    1. Re:Ugh, my eyes. by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      The Web wasn't invented until 1991, you young whippersnapper

      --
      #!
    2. Re:Ugh, my eyes. by enoz · · Score: 1

      No doubt using some version of Word for Dos, if the resulting code is any indication.

    3. Re:Ugh, my eyes. by glindsey · · Score: 1

      I know; isn't it odd? Somehow they managed to create an absolutely awful website before HTML was even invented! It's a fascinating mystery.

  20. And here's the ironic bit about all of this... by Tipa · · Score: 1

    The page the link brings you to is full of ads for domain squatters, including a big picture one at the bottom for "Domain Fool", which "brings you domain names at foolish discounts!"

    So, they tried to figure out what domain names you might want, BOUGHT THEM from under you for pennies, and now are trying to sell them back to you for piles of money...

    "Hey, new mothers! After you have your baby, we're gonna take it, then sell it back to you for a FOOLISH DISCOUNT! Woo woo!"

  21. This is why .xxx is so necessary by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    ...to give the next generation something to brag about.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  22. I was worried there for a second... by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

    I was worried until my conscious mind had the time to process the fact that TimeCube != Datacube.
    I think we should all be glad that TimeCube took much longer to arrive.

    --
    True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    1. Re:I was worried there for a second... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      I think we should all be glad that TimeCube took much longer to arrive.

      Four times longer? You only think that because you've been educated stupid.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  23. Fanboyism by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple is there
    Microsoft is not

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Fanboyism by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Apple is there
      Microsoft is not
      Even SCO is there...
      But soon they won't be...
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Fanboyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1985 Microsoft was a relatively small company focused on application development. They were 1/14th the size of Apple then.

    3. Re:Fanboyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't even say 1/14th...Apple was already pumping out Apple II's in the late 70s/early 80s. Woz was even throwing millions into the US festival by late 1982.

    4. Re:Fanboyism by bizard · · Score: 1

      Even SCO is there... yes, but that is the real SCO, not the current owners.
    5. Re:Fanboyism by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      whois microsoft.com

      Creation Date: 02-may-1991

      --
      realkiwi
    6. Re:Fanboyism by nerdyalien · · Score: 0

      Apple was discovered by Isaac Newton in 16th century...
      Microsoft was discovered by Bill Gate somewhere in 70s..

      That's why Apple is there and Microsoft is not there...

    7. Re:Fanboyism by sputnikid · · Score: 1

      so is SCO.COM

    8. Re:Fanboyism by toddestan · · Score: 1

      ....and Xerox beat them both!

    9. Re:Fanboyism by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Gates was anti-Internet. He thought netspace would consolidate on the CompuServe / AOL model of nationwide dialup BBSes, and ignored the Internet with Windows for as long as he could. Windows didn't even have an official TCP/IP stack until Windows 95, well after the World Wide Web took off and Microsoft finally conceded that the Internet was the future. Prior to Win95, you need to figure out how to install Trumpet WinSock into Windows 3.0 or 3.1.

  24. wiki by tofupup · · Score: 5, Informative

    here is a nice linked list of the *.com list
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com

    1. Re:wiki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, some registrar must have had a heckuva sale on December 11, 1986. .com names as low as $10,000/year!!!

  25. Commercial traffic and the early internet by Cherveny · · Score: 1

    One reason why it may of taken a while for commercial sites to become more common on the Internet, was, in the 1980s, there was a strong bias against ANY form of commercial message on the net expressed by many people. Posting a message on UseNET that even came close to an ad could easily get you emailbombed those days. (hard to think of these days, with UseNET so full of spam these days.)

    --
    --- It's not my fault this post looks redundant. I just type too slow.
    1. Re:Commercial traffic and the early internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason why it may of taken a while...

      may HAVE! It may HAVE taken a while. Sorry for the grammar flame, but that one just really bothers me.

  26. Rough X-mas Shopping by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

    Unless you were in the market for a B-2 Stealth bomber
    In which case the Northrop Grumman Corporation had a monopoly on the holiday shopping season.

    --
    I want to be retired when I grow up.
    1. Re:Rough X-mas Shopping by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Unless you were in the market for a B-2 Stealth bomber
      In which case the Northrop Grumman Corporation had a monopoly on the holiday shopping season.


      Of course in 1985 it was just Northrop, they hadn't merged with Grumman yet. (Also the B-2 wasn't ready until 1989, so you would have had to take a raincheck.)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    2. Re:Rough X-mas Shopping by poormanjoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the wiki:
      An estimated US$23 billion were secretly spent for research and development on the B-2 in the 1980s. An additional expense was caused by changing its role in 1985 from a high-altitude bomber to a low-altitude bomber, which required a major redesign. B-2 in flight over the Mississippi River (St. Louis, Missouri) with the Gateway Arch and Busch Stadium in the background.The first B-2 was publicly displayed on 22 November 1988, when it was rolled out of its hangar at Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California, where it was built. Its first public flight was on 17 July 1989.

      So after 23 billion secretly spent dollers you think the American public was the first to see what had been built the day before? Unless you worked on the project, you cannot say when it was "ready" It's probly wasnt ready until the communists figured out what we had built, and it was then obsolete.

      --
      I want to be retired when I grow up.
    3. Re:Rough X-mas Shopping by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Many people worked on the B-2 for awhile before they even knew what the entire project was. They were just tasked to work on parts of it without knowing that the final product was a stealth bomber. This is probably why it was such a well kept secret during the 80s.

  27. Our old friends... by drew · · Score: 1

    sco.com

    Such a shame it had to come to this...

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  28. And some sites still have 80's design by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Informative
    Like John Gilmore's site.

    Simple and to the point.

    BTW this is the guy who can't fly because he refuses to get a government issued ID. Interesting stuff.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:And some sites still have 80's design by butterwise · · Score: 1

      Like John Gilmore's site.
      Ugh. He must be contracting out to Jakob Nielsen.
      --
      If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
    2. Re:And some sites still have 80's design by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 1

      Wasn't toad.com one of the machines that Mitnick used to haxx0r up Tsutomu Shimomura?

      Certainly rings a bell anyway..

      --
      I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
    3. Re:And some sites still have 80's design by CrAlt · · Score: 1

      Wasn't toad.com one of the machines that Mitnick used to haxx0r up Tsutomu Shimomura?

      Certainly rings a bell anyway.. ya

      see http://www.takedown.com/
      --
      I have to return some videotapes...
  29. My favorite by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    I am intrigued by toad.com

    Now there's a visionary.

  30. Ever Changing List by NeoTerra · · Score: 1

    You would have to report them in real-time since that list is constantly adding to the bottom.

    1. Re:Ever Changing List by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      Joke
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Your Head

    2. Re:Ever Changing List by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      Hehheh yeah, that's true. Actually I was jesting and meant 'the last .com domains *ever*'

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    3. Re:Ever Changing List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to report them in real-time since that list is constantly adding to the bottom.
      tail -f dnslist

      Done.
    4. Re:Ever Changing List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear it's posted on the wall of the Restaurant at the end of the Universe... FYI

  31. More Interesting.... by JeremyGNJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it would be more interesting to see the "First 100 dot com's that were sold for big money"

  32. Bad Business Hours? by Trintech · · Score: 1

    I find it kind of odd that so many of these domains were registered on the same date. Was the registering office only open once a week or was the internet so new and scary that the companies went in groups?

  33. Talk about the old days... by lseltzer · · Score: 1

    The administrative contact for the oldest name, symbolics.com, has a Compuserve e-mail address.

  34. Stargate? by Steve+S · · Score: 0

    The Stargate movie came out in 1994 according to IMDB, yet in the first 100 domain names I find:
    stargate.com
    pyramid.com
    vortex.com
    portal.com
    rosetta.com

    Neat.

    --
    ------- Driver carries less than 64K of cache.
    1. Re:Stargate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not the movie. Stargate was a project that transmitted a USENET feed via satellite (in the vertical blanking interval on WTBS, actually - ah, Night Tracks, we hardly knew ye).

      Pyramid was a hardware manufacturer, Vortex was (is) Lauren Weinstein's consulting company (I believe), Portal was an early (arguably the first) commercial USENET provider, and Rosetta was (is) Scott Warren's consulting company.

    2. Re:Stargate? by DeionXxX · · Score: 1

      I also wandered around this. I wonder if it was in reference to a "Star Gate" which seems like pretty obvious reference to many SciFi novels, or does the word "Stargate" refer to a specific SciFi story.

      Did anyone happen to visit Stargate.com before the movie???

      Looks like Stargate.com is now a Co-location company in Chicago.

    3. Re:Stargate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used a black hole to go back in time to register.

  35. ccTLD? by kalirion · · Score: 1

    From TFA: The first top level domains were COM, ORG, EDU, GOV, MIL and ccTLD.

    This seems to imply the possibility of a domain named 'whatever.cctld'. They should have just come out and listed the ccTLDs available at the beginning (UK, SU, etc.)

  36. What about .ARPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before all this junk, wasn't there was a top level domain called .ARPA? There were gateways from ARPAnet to other nets such as BITNET and so on...

    1. Re:What about .ARPA by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Before all this junk, wasn't there was a top level domain called .ARPA?"

      There *is* an .arpa TLD still today. I don't know if it currently holds anything but in-addr.arpa, but it surely exists.

    2. Re:What about .ARPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Before the domain name system was invented, there were just hostnames. ARPANET hosts had single, flat hostnames like SRI-NIC or UCBVAX (at Berkeley) or SU-TAC (Stanford) or MIT-EDDIE (which had a sibling, MIT-DEEP-THOUGHT). These were all kept in a single flat text file, maintained centrally by SRI-NIC (the Network Information Center at Stanford Research International).

      When the ARPANET started implementing the DNS, .ARPA was invented as a temporary transitional measure. All those existing flat hostnames gained a .ARPA suffix, so they could be made to fit into the DNS while each institution managed a transition to "real" domains.

      Today, as already mentioned, .arpa contains only certain low-level infrastructure like in-addr.arpa.

    3. Re:What about .ARPA by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      'Today, as already mentioned, .arpa contains only certain low-level infrastructure like in-addr.arpa.'

      Low level infrastructure like The Unicycle Blog.

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
  37. .org was always a catch-all by Cadre · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sure when the net was young that .orgs had to be non profit

    .org was not created for non-profit organizations, it was originally created as a catch-all for organizations that didn't meet the requirements for the other gTLDs. PIR's History Page, RFC 920, RFC 1591

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    1. Re:.org was always a catch-all by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The relevant section from RFC920:

                        GOV = Government, any government related domains meeting the
                                        second level requirements.

                        EDU = Education, any education related domains meeting the
                                        second level requirements.

                        COM = Commercial, any commercial related domains meeting the
                                        second level requirements.

                        MIL = Military, any military related domains meeting the
                                        second level requirements.

                        ORG = Organization, any other domains meeting the second
                                        level requirements.

      Now, what kind of of organization isn't governmental, educational, commercial, or military? A non-profit.

    2. Re:.org was always a catch-all by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Now, what kind of of organization isn't governmental, educational, commercial, or military? A non-profit.

      It all depends on what you mean by "non-profit". How about just a simple personal domain? Although most of these are de facto non-profits, common usage reserves the term non-profit for organizations that explicitly fall under IRS code section 503. So there are potential entities that fall under .org that do not fall under the rubric of "non-profit" organizations.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:.org was always a catch-all by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about just a simple personal domain?
      Not an organization.

      I probably should stop myself from counter-nitpicking this particular nitpick. The important fact here is that RFC920 has never been enforced and wasn't all the realistic to begin with. To argue about the precise meaning of rules that have never been enforced (Does Slashdot violate the RFC by being commercial or by being not a non-profit?) is kind of silly.

  38. Yeay Bellcore! by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1

    Number 10! Of course, now it redirects to Telcordia. I knew that Bellcore was of the first ones, but never imagined to be number 10. I could've imagine Bell Labs and AT&T to register earlier. Oh well, those were the days...

    --
    Vi havas e-poston.
  39. .com-to-.com email forbidden by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Keep in mind that in those days the Internet was not supposed to be used for commercial purposes.

    In those days, .com's were only supposed to be on the net as a convenience for fostering research collaboration between them and their .edu partners.

    In theory, it was OK to send email from a .edu to a .edu, from a .edu to a .com it had a research relationship with, or from a .com to a .edu it had a research relationship, but .com's were not supposed to exchange email directly.

    1. Re:.com-to-.com email forbidden by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sort of, the AUP for NSFNet did not allow for commercial use of the network, there could be communications between .com's but not for commercial purposes, ie if two defense contractors needed to work on a joint project that would be ok but not for one contractor to solicit business from another. That changed in 1988 which MCI Mail was experimentally hooked to the network, so not too long after the .com TLD.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  40. Coincidence ? by nsebban · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In March 1986, it's interesting to see that HP, Bell, IBM, SUN, Intel and TI registered their domain during the same month. IBM and SUN, but also Intel and TI got theirs on the exact same day.

    --
    ____
    nico
    Nico-Live
    1. Re:Coincidence ? by kisielk · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that whoever was updating the list at the time just got around to adding them all on that particular day.

  41. Conspiracy by kryten_nl · · Score: 3, Funny
    This confirms our theories:

    STARGATE.COM August 5 1986

    --
    For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    1. Re:Conspiracy by tb3 · · Score: 1

      I guess the SGC has to be separate from the rest of the military net. ;)

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  42. Let's keep things in context by north.coaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Remember that this took place during the time frame of the transition from a research oriented network (the ARPANET) to a larger, more production oriented network. The World Wide Web in it's current form had not even been invented yet. The creation of the .com domain was driven by a technical requirement to switch to a hierarchical based system, replacing a flat name space. The first step was to adopt the temporary .arpa domain name. Most companies then switched from the .arpa domain to the .com domain when their technical staff was ready to make the transition.

    In other words, registering for a .com domain was an administrative necessity for the relatively small number of companies that were connected to the DARPA Internet at that time. It was not a business decision.

    Putting this in context, during this same time frame lot of universities were connected to a different network, called CSNET. BITNET was also very active during this period. Although there were interconnections between the DARPA Internet, CSNET, and BITNET, each was a truly independent network. A lot of companies with Unix installations were on UUCP (which did not use a domain based name system).

    Considering the market segments that companies like Microsoft were involved with in the mid 1980's, it should not surprise anyone that they were not among the first to register for .com domains. It would not have made any sense for them to do so.

    1. Re:Let's keep things in context by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the market segments that companies like Microsoft were involved with in the mid 1980's, it should not surprise anyone that they were not among the first to register for .com domains. It would not have made any sense for them to do so.

      As compared to Apple, a massive old-school defense contractor that's only recently transitioned from nuclear guidance systems to MP3 players.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    2. Re:Let's keep things in context by dtobias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And once the Marketing Types found out about domain names, they were determined to turn it back into a flat namespace, ignoring subdomains and top-level domains other than .com.

      --
      --Dan
      Web Tips
    3. Re:Let's keep things in context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple wasn't an "old-school defense(sic) contractor", but they were trying to flog their wares to the military. As such, registering a domain name made sense for them. Not every company meets with success when trying to sell $200 hammers...

    4. Re:Let's keep things in context by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah! This is p057@nemomus givin a shoutout to all the old-school nerds from BITNET. Because It's Time!

    5. Re:Let's keep things in context by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1

      I think this had to do with Apple being more associated with education at the time and being more responsive to their market. As I recall MS didn't come out with a TCP stack until windows95 (and yes I know there were third party stack for windows3.1). Honestly, I think the whole internet thing blindsided MS.

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    6. Re:Let's keep things in context by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      Considering the market segments that companies like Microsoft were involved with in the mid 1980's, it should not surprise anyone that they were not among the first to register for .com domains. It would not have made any sense for them to do so.

      If you read some of the old stuff, MS was quite expressly strategizing on the "computer on every desk" paradigm, with a network tacked on for communications, maybe, but certainly not as a major driver of anything. As opposed to Oracle, which wanted everybody to have a dumb terminal and the computing power centralized in majorly big iron - with the net as a main enabling technology. And as opposed to Sun, which really recognized the net as a worthy entity in itself ("the network is the computer"). It's about outlook on a technology as much as "target market".

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    7. Re:Let's keep things in context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, of course, Microsoft had no interest in selling software to the military, government, or education markets.

    8. Re:Let's keep things in context by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      As compared to Apple, a massive old-school defense contractor that's only recently transitioned from nuclear guidance systems to MP3 players.
      "Hi, I'm a 900 megaton thermonuclear device capable of turning the entire Soviet Union into a glass parking lot at the push of a button."
      "And I'm a PC!"
    9. Re:Let's keep things in context by aduthie · · Score: 1

      Adding the "[sic]" after "defense" suggests that you believe the U.S. Department of Defense doesn't know how to spell its own name. They'll be talking to you about this at lunchtime. Do not resist.

  43. and now it's gone ??? by kaaona · · Score: 1

    Either I'm having DNS resolution difficulties or the site http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/first71.html has dropped off the air.

    1. Re:and now it's gone ??? by kaaona · · Score: 1

      Must have been a local DNS problem. Works now.

  44. Stargate and Pyramid by Traksius+Egas · · Score: 1


    Does anyone else find it interesting that STARGATE.COM and PYRAMID.COM were registered number 25 and 29 respectively?

    Just goes to show you that conspiracies can be found everywhere if you look hard enough. :)

  45. What did they know? by Octopus · · Score: 1

    Stargate.com?

    Octopus.com?

    *swings tinfoil hat to the side, b-boy style, yo*

  46. DEC by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Wow DEC registered BEFORE (but not by much) IBM!!
    And that was AFTER Ken Olson had gone senile!

  47. Portal.com by RedMage · · Score: 1


    Hey, I had a portal.com account -- cup.portal.com to be precise.

    I used an Amiga to access that machine over PPP, and before that UUCP. Prior to that it was UUCP to a DEC associates' VAX, and two hops to DECVAX. Pretty good turnaround on usenet too. It was that UUCP connection that finally got me to 9600 bps, which cost quite a bit in those days. When broadband came along in the 90's, I was all over that. No more modems!

    RM

    --
    }#q NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Portal.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had cake.portal.com.

  48. Not the first... by ozymyx · · Score: 1

    There were a bunch of machines connected in 1987, but not using the domain name system....USENET was thriving at that time but machine names and emailing was based on the x!y!x system of addressing not domains. I started at a commerical company in 1982 called Quantime in London which had a USENET connection and we emailed all over the world. So these are not the first companies on line but the first to register with these new fangled "domain" thingies :-). Who can forget kremvax !

  49. Hrrm by huckamania · · Score: 1

    97 November 16, 1987 cayman.com

    If you don't hear from me in a few days, can someone contact my Mom. Thanks.

  50. No Microsoft.com!!!?? by butterwise · · Score: 1

    If only I'd had my mind on cybersquatting instead of "Dungeons & Dragons" back in the day...

    --
    If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
  51. Re:Internet connections - UUCP! by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 1

    UUCP is dead. LONG LIVE UUCP!

    I remember those obtuse mail routings with lists of exclamation point delimited domains.

    In fact, I know UUCP is still still in use in many places.

  52. Al Gore!? by devil6god7 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I am surprised that AlGore.com wasnt at the top of the list! ;-) Devil6God7

    1. Re:Al Gore!? by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

      Wow! That joke gets funnier and funnier the 9324850928374059385709th time around.

      [ Note to mods: Classify this post as -1; Sarcasm ]

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  53. Siemens, a bit of history by David+Off · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Some companies realized that this will be the future (and I'm honestly surprised to see Siemens on the list, they must've had better and more visionary people in their upper echelons back then), and they registered their trademark as a com domain rather than fighting a lengthy battle with domain grabbers as many have done later.

    At the time we (I speak as a Siemens employee about the time) were developing a Unix based minicomputer systes based around National Semiconductor chips - the MX range of computers which were widely used by the German State (post, trains, work service etc). We then moved onto an i386 architecture, first with a port of SCO Unix then we did the actual Intel port of Unix 5.4 for AT&T. Our customers were pretty heavy users of TCP/IP - for network printing and file sharing.

    I don't know who registered siemens.com, we also had siesoft.co.uk for the UK. However the Unix visionary was Hans Strack Zimmermann. I don't recall the research headquarters in Munich having great connectivity at the time. I seem to recall most traffic went via UUCP via Dusseldorf university and was charged by the kilobyte but we did have ftp access by about 1988. I ran up a 70,000 DM bill with a colleague downloading stuff like the King James Bible!!!

    Siemens was a founder member of the OSF so has pretty good credentials.

  54. Re:Internet connections - UUCP! by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

    In fact, I know UUCP is still still in use in many places.

    Really? Out of necessity or just for nostalgic/inertia reasons?

    I just see fetchmail these days - nobody seems to be more than one missing link away from the internet anymore.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  55. My first thought was... by avronius · · Score: 1
    My first thought was, "what a piece of junk!" And then, in the back of my head, I could Harrison Ford reply:

    She'll make point five past lightspeed.
  56. IDE.com registration and use of email by twasserman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was founder and CEO of Interactive Development Environments, Inc. (ide.com), which was the 78th dotcom on the "first 100" list. IDE developed the Software through Pictures multi-user graphical modeling environment that ran on a heterogeneous network of Unix workstations. We released our product in late 1984, got VC funding in May, 1988, and lasted until November, 1996, when we were merged into Aonix, which still exists today.

    Although we were 78th on that list, I believe that we were among the very first to place an ad that used an email address as a contact point. I was able to find an ad from the August, 1987, issue of Unix World, where we gave our email address as ucbvax!sun!ide!sales, using the UUCP format. Our customers were developers and early adopters, mostly on Sun workstations, so we actually got some email and some sales leads in this way. Of course, we switched to the "@ide.com" format as soon as we were able to do so. (Please post a reply if you are aware of an earlier use of an email address in a published ad.)

    Fun times....

    1. Re:IDE.com registration and use of email by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was wondering if anyone else was going to bring this up or if I'd have to. Since .com was the ugly stepsister, and most everyone had email and file transfer access through uucp, most people weren't in a hurry to change anything. For a small company without any research ties, it was (a) hard to get anything besides third or lower tier uucp, (b) a connection besides uucp to a university or a well-connected friend's company was horribly expensive, and (c) there wasn't much point- it bought you nothing.

      In 1988 I worked at Sales Technologies, which went by ...emory.edu!stiatl . Even when we registered salestech.com, it took a while before we could really do much with it. 98% of the people we did anything with still had to reach us through UUCP, which meant !!!!!!stiatl.

      It gave us huge geek foo, though.

  57. First domain name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, I was half expecting to see AlGore.com as the first one, since he invented the Internet and all.

  58. Re:Why? - Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Have you ever heard of this "internet"? It's the new inter-netting they upt inside swim trunks. It provides a Comforting snugness"

  59. So many tables, yet no alignment by Aidtopia · · Score: 1

    You'd think that—with all the tables in that HTML—they might have actually been able to align the domain names with the friggin' dates!

  60. What surprises me... by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is that an old-line mining and manufacturing corporation like ALCOA was on that list.

    1. Re:What surprises me... by talon_262 · · Score: 1

      My guess that Alcoa was able to get an early .com name because of defense work (metals for military planes, ships, etc.).

      --

      Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
    2. Re:What surprises me... by talon_262 · · Score: 1

      PIMF... Also I'd think Alcoa was able to get an early .com name not for defense work with ARPA, but as part of the research community (working with universities to develop new alloys, etc.), which would lead back to any work with ARPA.

      --

      Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
  61. They got the whole thing wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The first dot com was command dot com. *me ducks*
    Whew, close call.

    Then it was *whack*

  62. Re:The First Post Registered by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

    Spam boy: Do not try and post the first. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Spam boy: There is no first. Neo: There is no first? Spam boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the first that is posted, it is only yourself, being a fucktard.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  63. x.org by moximus · · Score: 1

    I always wondered where x.org fit into the mix, given how unique it is for its single-letter.

  64. Something missing here by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

    Am I just missing something here? Where's algore.com? I mean if he invented it you'd think he'd have been on it...

    1. Re:Something missing here by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      decadesbehind.com

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  65. .net ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be insteresting who has the first .net domain.

  66. not even suprising by taniwha · · Score: 1

    getting an internet connection prior to about 1990 was really really hard and expensive BBN had a lock on providing new connections and the cost was beyond mere mortals

  67. Stupidest tag soup evah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That site's layout is even dumber than slashdot's! The present a two-column by one hundred row table as... a table with all the first column in one td element and all the other in another. One row! So if the stupidly fixed-width column isn't quite wide enough - perhaps you've told your browser to limit the teensiness that dickhead site designers can inflict on you, as I have - they get out of sync.

    This isn't just bad design, it's stupid. Really really stupid, stupid, stupid. Nearly as stupid as posting this piece of crap on the slash... ...just noticed that it's even dumber than I thought - the TABLE is limited to not fill the otherwise available column space. The head is quite far enough up the backdoor as to be invisble from out here...

  68. And archived screen cap of Symbolics.com by JoshuaB86 · · Score: 2, Interesting
  69. What happened to helloworld.com? by moshennik · · Score: 1

    Shocking!

  70. Nasty site.. by popeydotcom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.whoisd.com/oldestcom.php is the list I have had in my bookmark for a good few years..

  71. Errr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is that website so damn ugly? Is design sense inversely proportional to domain length????

  72. How Times Change by kindbud · · Score: 1
    From TFA linked in the story:

    Now for the first .com which was registered on March 15 1985 and it was symbolics.com which still happens to be up and running, although not much to look at.


    Yeah, the Symbolics website today doesn't look at all like it did in 1985. It's a dim shadow of its former glory.
    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  73. McDonalds by sharp-bang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wired Magazine famously squatted mcdonalds.com in 1994. Worth a read for those wondering what the pre-dot-com corporate mentality was like.

    --
    #!
  74. see there were computer networks before... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

    See there WAS networking prior to Microsoft. In fact, I find it interesting that Microsoft isn't one of the top 100...what the hell were they (not) thinking?

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  75. 1985 - that late ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Informative
    I thought that I was late when I registered my name in early 1988. NRS registration in the UK started in 1983.

    We had names the other way round in those days, most significant bit first: uk.co.phcomp

  76. Huh? by Soiden · · Score: 1

    Where's sex.com?!

    --
    Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
  77. Big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I wanna know is, when was the first pr0n domain name registered?

  78. My 3-letter domain name (UPT) by merc · · Score: 1

    I registered with NIC.DDN.MIL in 1988 or 1989, probably why I was able to get a three letter domain name itself. Of course in those days you had to have sponsorship of some kind through the NSF, and that made it a bit harder to get connected to the net.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  79. interesting by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    I see Apple.com... Where's Microsoft.com?

    1. Re:interesting by bwintx · · Score: 1

      Mr. Gates wasn't all that interested in this Internet thing at the time. Even as late as 1994, his book The Road Ahead barely addressed it at all, although the accompanying CD had some mildly entertaining video about how the "family of the future" (or somesuch) would be using what clearly had to be the 'Net. Whether it used the agonizing phrase "information superhighway," I mercifully don't recall.

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    2. Re:interesting by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I see Apple.com... Where's Microsoft.com? Interesting is the Adobe. Adobe was comparable to a small computer shop at that time as far as they say and they registered their domain. Adobe took off with Apple embracing the postscript based on the Macworld article I saw recently.

      http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/11/adobe25/index.php

      "Three years later, in 1985, desktop publishing was unleashed when Warnock and Geschke teamed up with Steve Jobs to create a printer based on that computer language--the Apple LaserWriter with Adobe PostScript-- and that took advantage of the Mac's graphic interface. "

      About Microsoft? I think people started to forget. MSFT thought the "Internet" will never take off and people will somehow get locked to their closed MSN Network. That is the reason of delay on IE 1.0 to ship (it was SOLD,inside Plus '95 pack) and Netscape took off.

  80. No Micro$oft.com by AmericanBlarney · · Score: 1

    Interesting to note that microsoft.com was not one of those first 100. Not unexpected, but it does somewhat show how they weren't an innovator in the networked computing and explains why they didn't even treat it as a priority until Windows 2000.

  81. More apropos... by dwayrynen · · Score: 1

    I think this list is more apropos as people tend to think of the world wide web 'being' the Internet...

    http://web.archive.org/web/19980113224527/http://www.fidouk.org/wwwcom.html

    It's a list of functional www.*.com web servers in February of 1995. (the archive is from 1998, but the page was last edited in 95)

    I didn't think that the web would take off at that point, but was personally responsible for setting up a handful of those web sitest and registering their domains... This was pre-yahoo/hotmail and most other high traffic web sites that exist today.

  82. MOD PARENT UP by shiftless · · Score: 1

    As compared to Apple, a massive old-school defense contractor that's only recently transitioned from nuclear guidance systems to MP3 players.

    Did anyone else get the same mental picture...? You, sir, owe me a new laptop. :(

  83. 3COM broke the rules for DNS names by nuckfuts · · Score: 2, Informative

    You might have noticed 3COM.COM on that list, about half way down. Strictly speaking it was not allowed to use a number as the first letter in a DNS name. To quote from RFC 1035:

    "The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less."

    I remember wondering how 3COM got away with it.

    1. Re:3COM broke the rules for DNS names by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      The wonderful ukulele website, www.4thpeg.com, also starts with a digit.
       
      How funny, the captcha is "registry"

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  84. Hmmm... by MadMorf · · Score: 1

    I worked for BBN when they registered their .com and didn't even know it.

    That's it, nothing more exciting than that...

  85. This makes me feel old... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    I remember all of these companies what I was in college. SCO used to be a good company when they made Xenix and other Unix flavor OS for the x86 platform and they where really located near Santa Cruz, CA (they where located in Scotts Valley, CA which is on the highway going to Santa Cruz). How far have they gone from that era. I have worked on used or worked the companies on this first 100 list. Prime, Apple, Wyse, Datacube, Convergent, Pyramid, Tek, ATT (the 3Bxxx stuff), Gene and few more I don't remember but I was at a spin off/start up in college at that time I was a developer and QA person so I had to test these devices with our software that we developed. So many of these companies have merged out of existence or gone out of business. Ahh the good old days.

  86. Damned Hindsight... by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1

    Back around 1992 I gave a 2 hour long presentation on the World Wide Web to my fellow B.Comp undergrads using Mosaic and showing sites like NASA, and a handful of IT companies who had some limitted content up and running. I remember thinking, man - this has HUGE potential! Someones going to make a killing on this... 15 years later and I now know that THAT SOMEONE should have been me. Instead.. with my B.Comp degree in hand and plenty of ideas... I sat back and watched every idea that I'd ever had with my friends over lunch, get implemented by somebody else and take off (even if only for a little while). Lesson learned. For every dreamer, you must have someone willing to make it a reality - otherwise you're just a spectator with cool ideas.

  87. Funny Story by DougReed · · Score: 1

    My company at the time would have been an early registration except for one thing. ... They did not know they were supposed to register! We built this big Intranet Infrastructure and started selling WAN services to large companies and wrote software to send email between cc:Mail and MS-Mail and Profs and ... a ton more using SNMP across the WAN (this was before all of the mail engines had SNMP gateways, and X.400 was expected to be the next big thing).. It was not until "this Internet thing" started catching on, and customers asked us for "Internet access" .. We already had it for us, so we said "sure" and set up a couple of gateways and the customers started using the, not very secret, SNMP back-end to send cc:Mail/MS-Mail messages to people outside their company and started complaining that when they sent e-mail to other companies, the replies did not work ... I was in Washington DC and my company headquarters was in California. They asked me to fly out and have a look at the problem. As soon as I got to California, I went to see the person in charge of the DNS, who was reading the "bind" man page and looking at her DNS entries trying to figure out why it wasn't working.

    So I asked her... did you forget to pay your dues? Maybe our domain registration expired. She looked up and said "dues"? "registration"? What the hell are you talking about?

    Today that wouldn't work for three minutes because the reverse DNS wouldn't work, but back then nobody enforced reverse DNS, so if you had your own DNS that was configured properly, you could work fine until someone in the outside world tried to send a message. Even then, people would just put you in their hosts file and forget about it. We were the DNS for everybody, so nobody noticed. I even found out someone in support had told people the problem was their DNS address was wrong, and in addition to our customers, a bunch of other corporations (not our customers) had changed their corporate wide DNS entries to point to our DNS! ... no firewalls back then either. All this came out when this person in support told the "wrong DNS" story to someone on the list above who actually KNEW how the world worked and they said "bullshit! go fix your domain".

    It wasn't my job so I never gave it a thought because I was not much of an e-mail guy; usually ignored mine ... I even wrote some of the e-mail stuff, but I only wanted to get the Intranet and gateways to work... didn't need to send to the outside world, and I had a company supplied dedicated ISDN line at home, using DNS. Like a week before I went to California, I sent an e-mail to the author of Kermit about a bug I had found, which was the first time I had ever sent an e-mail to anyone in the real world. He called me on the phone to say his reply bounced... I said "too busy now .. got to go to California for some problem they can't figure out... will look at it when I get back and send you another message when it's fixed.."

    Today the domain would be owned by some scalper who would have charged us a million or two to sell it to us. :-)

  88. SCO.COM, about to be deleted by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

    Would there be any other reason to post something like this to /.? Well, look who registered on September 3rd, 1987, about two months after my first company (trw.com) was registered.

    It's a nice bit of nostalgia for us old folk.
  89. incredibly long URL by chaos421 · · Score: 1

    did anyone else happen to notice the insanely long URL for the linked site? http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/ that has to be a record of some sort...