Slashdot Mirror


Internet's First Registered Domain Name Sold

MojoKid writes "Believe it or not, it wasn't internet.com or dot.com that was acquired when the Internet was young. Instead, it was the somewhat off-the-wall name of symbolics.com. The Symbolics company was the first to use an internet domain name to guide Internet viewers to its line of Lisp machines, which were single-user computers optimized to run the Lisp programming language. XF.com Investments, which is a Missouri-based Internet investments firm, has managed to secure the domain name from its original owner for an undisclosed sum and XF's CEO was quick to proclaim his excitement over the acquisition. It's hard to say why this domain name was the first registered back on March 15, 1985, but for obvious reasons it holds a special place in history. There has been one original owner for nearly 25 years. Over that time, we've seen the Internet grow to the tune of 180,000,000+ registered domains, and thousands more are being added each and every day."

137 comments

  1. fp for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    make an offer.

    1. Re:fp for sale by AnonGCB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, I can't mod this offtopic, as much as I want to. This is actually slightly clever and had it been a registered user I'd have modded +1 funny.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    2. Re:fp for sale by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it's not the first fp, so it's not worth as much.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:fp for sale by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Hey! first-post.com ?!?!?!

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    4. Re:fp for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry I modded it offtopic for ya.

    5. Re:fp for sale by jo42 · · Score: 1

      I bid 10,000 quatloos!

    6. Re:fp for sale by Captain+Electrode · · Score: 1

      Who gives a tribble, I just want the thralls. 20,000 quatloos!

  2. EPIC FAIL by popo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine being able to choose any domain name you wanted.... ... and choosing "Symbolics.com".

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:EPIC FAIL by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      in all fairness, .cx wasn't yet available.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, porn.com would have been a lot more valuable.

    3. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was one of those things that didn't seem that stupid at the time, like DOS or Twitter(I'm predicting here).

    4. Re:EPIC FAIL by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it makes perfect sense. You own a company called Symbolics, and you have the feeling this commercial-internet thing is going to be big. So you choose your domain name to represent the face you want to show to the internet at large: symbolics.com, the commercial site for Symbolics.

      IOW, it's the domain system working the way it's supposed to. Before domain name squatting. Before the idea that a name alone, rather than the thing which the name is supposed to represent, embodies actual value becoming firmly embedded in the public mind. Before the sex.com ripoff, before Mike Rowe Soft, before all the other domain name silliness we've all seen far too much of.

      I suppose you think he should have registered IBM.com and held out for piles of cash. Or maybe he should have paid a consulting firm another pile of cash to come up with some vaguely pleasant-sounding and utterly meaningless collection of syllables and stuck ".com" on the end. Or something.

      Some people actually remember what the domain name system is for.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:EPIC FAIL by interkin3tic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know, I would have chosen "symbolicsistotallyawesome.com"

    6. Re:EPIC FAIL by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      Imagine being able to choose any domain name you wanted.... ... and choosing "Symbolics.com".

      Imagine getting the fabled domain name, now please explain to me how you leverage that into any sort of profit outside of curious passerby's from The Slashdot.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:EPIC FAIL by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      tl;dr^Ht

    8. Re:EPIC FAIL by popo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, lighten up.

      First off, there are domain names like cars.com that one might have surmised would be very valuable -- and would not have been name squatting. How is this not "what the domain name system is for"?

      Or are you one of the Slashdot socialists who generally believes that profit is evil and that capitalists destroyed the Interweb?

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    9. Re:EPIC FAIL by dcollins · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Or are you one of the Slashdot socialists..."

      Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    10. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back then you couldn't just pick any name, you had to submit a justification for the name.

      You would also have needed an existing arpanet hostname and your domain better have reflected who
      you represent. Also, I don't believe there was any charge -- so no actual purchase.

    11. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mostly because the internet wasn't about making a profit, it was about sharing information.
      Thus the euphemistic name "information superhighway".
      Besides, just to clear your pipes a bit, capitalism is not about trying to fuck someone, its about providing goods for services rendered.
      In capitalism, domain squatting is usually referred to as piracy in it's truest form.

    12. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder you're mad, your home page isn't even your name - http://www.sff.net/people/Daniel.Dvorkin/

    13. Re:EPIC FAIL by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't remember the Internet, prior to somewhere around the September that never ended, very well, do you?

    14. Re:EPIC FAIL by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you going to go buy an acre in the middle of some prairie? It might be in the main financial district of a megacity in 25 years.

      (doesn't mean it's a good investment)

    15. Re:EPIC FAIL by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hey, what do you have against Mike Rowe? That guy's an American hero. Not only is he the host of Dirty Jobs, one of the few good shows on Discovery channel (the other being Mythbusters), but he's also a very outspoken supporter of the trades and American blue-collar workers. He's even got a website dedicated to the issue of the decline in trades jobs/workers in America, which has been a contributing factor to the collapse of our physical infrastructure.

      But, seriously, I absolutely agree with you. The domain name registration system is all fucked up. The registrars (the most successful of which typically have had close ties to the InterNIC/ICANN board) are making a killing already selling virtual goods (it's like printing money). The least they can do is to mitigate domain-squatting and domain-hijacking rather than to cooperate with and try to profit off of helping those scummy companies.

      I don't know why being sick of scummy business practices make you a socialist, but if trademarks were abused in the same fashion we'd quickly start running out of legible company or product names. Oh, you want to register a company name that doesn't substitute numbers for letters or incorporate creative misspellings? That will be $5000, please.

      I can understand the argument that capitalism is desirable for promoting healthy competition, driving down costs and increases product/service quality. But how do domain squatters/prospectors contribute anything positive to society? By driving the cost of decent domain names up? That benefits only the domain squatters/prospectors. They're the definition of a parasitic establishment—one whose actions benefits only themselves while harming the rest of society and draining its resources.

    16. Re:EPIC FAIL by schon · · Score: 1

      Hey, what do you have against Mike Rowe? That guy's an American hero. Not only is he the host of Dirty Jobs, one of the few good shows on Discovery channel (the other being Mythbusters), but he's also a very outspoken supporter of the trades and American blue-collar workers.

      Different Mike Rowe.

    17. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was under the impression that tubes.com and AlGore.com were the first domain names ever registered. Huh. Learn something new every day.

    18. Re:EPIC FAIL by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

      www.whoosh.com

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    19. Re:EPIC FAIL by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      in all fairness, .cx wasn't yet available.

      and goatse was still up close and personal...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    20. Re:EPIC FAIL by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first domain name was acquired long before people thought of using the internet for advertising, or even commerce. The early sites were for customer support, not marketing. The big internet goldrush wouldn't happen for nearly a decade. The names were undoubtedly chosen because these organizations already existed on the set of networks collectively known as the "internet", it was only the domain registrar that was new.

      It would be as pointless for Symbolics to choose cars.com as it would have been for IBM to choose movies.com as its domain name.

      Also, these are all .COM domains. There is a bit of selective editing going on here for some reason. I notice this blog mentions that the first .EDU and .GOV registrrations were in 1985, but a couple of paragraphs later completely forgets this and doesn't include them when listing "only 6 domains were registered this year".

      I also find it interesting that there were no more registrations for over a month until several domains were registered on April 24 1985 (including cmu.edu and berkeley.edu).

    21. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you don't realize that there's a difference between capitalism and douche baggery.

    22. Re:EPIC FAIL by macraig · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Or are you one of the Slashdot socialists who generally believes that profit is evil and that capitalists destroyed the Interweb?"

      He might not be, but I most certainly am. The domain name system was never envisioned as the commodity that it has become. Capitalism never benefits the Common Good especially well; rather it benefits a small minority of the Commons exceptionally well to the detriment of the rest. I presume you're at least well-read enough to have heard the term "concentration of wealth" and understand the dynamic that fuels it? We've certainly seen some concentration of domain names, now haven't we?

    23. Re:EPIC FAIL by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Capitalist are Destroying the internet. It is a work in progress friend.

    24. Re:EPIC FAIL by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I'd actually never heard about that court case before. So he did save me the time of looking it up myself. =P

    25. Re:EPIC FAIL by countach · · Score: 1

      I doubt they knew it was going to be big. I doubt they visualised a future with cars.com and sex.com.

    26. Re:EPIC FAIL by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

      Arguably it's called entrepreneurship.

    27. Re:EPIC FAIL by InlawBiker · · Score: 2, Funny
      I remember it well. Here's my hosts file, from before there was DNS.

      127.0.0.1 localhost
      127.0.0.1 pornbox
      216.17.96.87 symbolics.com
      192.1.122.17 bbn.com
      64.14.127.126 dec.com

      ...etc.

    28. Re:EPIC FAIL by j-stroy · · Score: 1

      I used the groundbreaking Symbolics 3D graphics workstation for a while It had a fast response graphics tablet paint system that was hardware based. It did a lot, and was impossible to crash... well if it ever "crashed", you clicked ok, and it kept going. was bulletproof, modular and nice.

    29. Re:EPIC FAIL by walmass · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Symbolics was founded by a few original MIT hackers from the AI lab.. people who wrote the first computer chess, the first space-war, people who modified the TX-0, then the PDP-1. They believed in free software and sharing knowledge (RMS was the last of that breed, from the same lab), and although the founding of Symbolics itself came from a conflict and it produced commercial software, they never forgot their roots.

      It would be inconceivable for them to domain-squat.

      If you have time, you might want to read a bit about them

    30. Re:EPIC FAIL by Raffaello · · Score: 2

      From TFA:
      The Symbolics company was the first to use an internet domain name to guide Internet viewers to its line of Lisp machines

      "internet viewers?" Were they "viewing" the internet via email or via usenet? :) This was 1985. There was an internet but there was no world wide web because Tim Berners-Lee had yet to invent it. The world's first web site didn't go live for another 6 years.

      This is why it didn't seem stupid at the time - there was no point in having a catchy domain name since there was no world wide web for people to surf to your catchy domain name on. Domains were just for mapping ip addresses to something easier to remember, not for luring in clueless web surfers.

    31. Re:EPIC FAIL by cstacy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, lighten up.

      First off, there are domain names like cars.com that one might have surmised would be very valuable -- and would not have been name squatting. How is this not "what the domain name system is for"?

      I was at MIT, BBN, Symbolics, and various other places back then and was a "network liaison" (administrator) on the ARPANET. (I did an obscure early implementation of DNS, too.)

      At the very beginning, it didn't occur to us that domain names would be traded as they are today, or that cybersquatting would be allowed. Toplevel names were supposed to be the names of organizations, and domain names were like host names (MIT-MC became MC.MIT.EDU). More abstract names (like "ftp" or "library" or "daily-scifi") might occur in the leaves, but not at toplevel.

      There were rules about who was allowed to register domain names; it was not a free-for-all where anyone could obtain a .COM domain. To qualify for a .COM, you had to represent that you were a multinational corporation with some large number of hosts (and that didn't mean consumer class personal computers, yet) coming on the network. To get a .ORG you had to be certified as a non-profit organization, and to get a .NET you had to be some kind of ISP. If you were just a small company, or an individual, you were supposed to register for a locality domain name (such as joeswidgets.boston.ma.us). (My own personal US domain was one of the first of those, actually.) The domain registration rules loosened up very soon after: I registered some other early .COM domains for small US-only companies about six months after SYMBOLICS.COM was registered.

      At some point, more or less anything could get registered. People such as myself were well positioned all along to just grab all the good names long before there was anyone else around. We could have all been millionaires, if we'd had the foresight to be unscrupulous cheaters. It's not that we didn't realize that cybersquatting would be lucrative. It just seemed like it would be a wrong and unethical thing to do, if you actually got away with it. I guess our imaginations failed in that respect. I guess we were chumps.

      Even before the Internet, we discussed how people might utilize "the worldnet" and what kind of problems would occur. But mostly we thought about it very much like how we viewed our familiar ARPANET -- it would be like the research network we were accustomed to except a little less idealized, with many more people and lots of random personal email and stuff. Spam had yet to be invented. There was no online ordering of books or goods. The grapes in my local grocery store did not have a URL on the label. There were no URLs yet! There was no web. Domain squatting or other infrastructure gaming was unimaginable: surely only properly validated names would be registered. And anyway, the DNS was never supposed to be the way that end users would locate services, anyway. There were supposed to be high level directory services, with DNS just an implementation detail. Directories never happened like was envisioned, and search engines were invented, instead. So to some degree that has finally happened now: many people just type things at Google and use bookmarks, and never really think much about domain names. And who actually types "cars.com" into a browser and expects any particular useful result?

    32. Re:EPIC FAIL by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      I remember one company I worked for in 1995 had registered a domain name for themselves and then asked us PC Specialists to register:

      walmart.com
      kmart.com
      sears.com

      etc Domain names as well, as they were vendors that the company sold tools and fans to via agreements. We told them that the domain names had already been taken and most popular names are owned by their owner, or someone else cybersquatted on them and sold them to the trademarked owner.

      I'll bet the vendors wouldn't have liked it that management tried to register their domain names.

      I still own domain names for companies I founded or tried to found, and from time to time someone tries to make an offer but doesn't give me a dollar amount. The names are unique for I founded them in the late 1990's, but other companies started to use the same name as imitators/competitors in the 21st century. I might be sitting on a gold mine if they make me a good offer for them.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    33. Re:EPIC FAIL by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Ah, the days of The List. Does anybody still remember the list?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    34. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking back, pussy.com would have been a much better choice.

    35. Re:EPIC FAIL by weav · · Score: 1

      As one of the people who worked on the graphics code ("S-Products") down in Westwood, I'm flattered that people remember the stuff. It does live on in the Mirai software, by which Gollum was done.

    36. Re:EPIC FAIL by Jurily · · Score: 1

      It was one of those things that didn't seem that stupid at the time, like DOS or Twitter(I'm predicting here).

      Twitter will be seen as stupid for all eternity.

    37. Re:EPIC FAIL by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On Slashdot, you are truly a god among men. Even though you didn't predict this future, to have witnessed the history between then and now is an honour many of us have not had.

      How many of the rest of us wish we could have been where you have? To have watched the Internet unfold from the ARPANET into truly unimaginable thing it is today?

    38. Re:EPIC FAIL by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      First off, there are domain names like cars.com that one might have surmised would be very valuable --

      Back in the day, the internet was mostly a research thingy, not a marketplace. So, cars.com would only "sell" to profs and students, a market which would probably be to thin to bother.

    39. Re:EPIC FAIL by DangerFace · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know this is getting a little offtopic, but I thought it needed to be said that you are wrong - capitalism isn't about providing goods for services rendered, or about trying to fuck anyone. It's about capital, hence the name, and capital is money or stuff. Whoever has the most wins. That's it. In capitalism, do whatever you want as long as you don't piss off someone richer than you. Of course, we don't live in a properly capitalist society, and few people want to.

    40. Re:EPIC FAIL by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the price of domain name registration was back then.

      --
      signature is pants
    41. Re:EPIC FAIL by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Here I was thinking that it was Twitter users that were destroying the Internet with their inane spelling decisions and unreadable texts.

      --
      signature is pants
    42. Re:EPIC FAIL by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Given that they were first, they didn't have a lot of failure/success stories to go on.

    43. Re:EPIC FAIL by Ratface · · Score: 1

      I bet it's got tons of Google-juice now though!

      --

      A little planning goes a long way...
    44. Re:EPIC FAIL by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Does anybody still remember the list?

      Anyone who doesn't is too young to be here...

      (Random "Get off my lawn" ranting)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    45. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe...but not as much as pr0n.com

    46. Re:EPIC FAIL by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

      > Imagine being able to choose any domain name you
      > wanted.... ... and choosing "Symbolics.com".

      When it was registered the company that owned it was in the business of selling computers that used the Lisp programming language.

      "Symbolics" is quite apposite for a company that sells a programming language.

    47. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez...are you an idiot or what!? We all want to live with more money. If whoever has the most money wins then I want the most money. What's so hard to understand about that? Oh yeah, you're a lazy, want to live off the governments teat, stupid, bleed from the heart liberal, Lenin lovin' socialist, Marx cox sucking commie, Obama turd eating JACKASS!!! You just don't know how to make money (dipshit).

    48. Re:EPIC FAIL by Migity · · Score: 1

      Anybody who buys land to make money in 25 years is truly DUMB!

    49. Re:EPIC FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chris has hit it right on the mark. (Hi there, by the way!)

      I was at UUNET in the very early '90s and I had the same experience. When it became possible to register names, I took the ONE that I thought most appropriate at the time, and that was that. They were free, and I didn't see any need to be excessive. I think that's probably true for most of my co-workers at the time as well.

      Now, it may also be possible that we were so weary from the constant process of having to get special permission for ANY customer who wanted to route traffic through the NSFnet backbone (and indoctrinate them that commercial traffic was verboten there), that we didn't want to jump through yet another bureaucratic process for a name.

      Eventually we "routed around" that problem and just built a bigger backbone. That works too.

    50. Re:EPIC FAIL by strat · · Score: 1

      Gah. I hate it when I forget to log in.

      On a related note, if anyone has the latest copy of Genera for a MacIvory board that won't cost me $500, I'm all ears.

    51. Re:EPIC FAIL by smootc-m · · Score: 3, Informative

      I registered utexas.edu on August 13, 1985. At that time the DNS was just getting started. The old ARPANET used static host tables. For a while we had to support both systems which was a bit of a pain.

    52. Re:EPIC FAIL by popo · · Score: 1

      Shouldnt there be an age requirement on Slashdot?

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    53. Re:EPIC FAIL by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Fuck no. Occasionally an AC says something unintentionally hilarious... and for the rest of the time, we have modding.

      --
      $ make available
    54. Re:EPIC FAIL by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1


      I also find it interesting that there were no more registrations for over a month until several domains were registered on April 24 1985 (including cmu.edu and berkeley.edu).

      Sounds like somebody had fun on a combo vacation/spring break and had a pile of forms to process when he got back.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    55. Re:EPIC FAIL by force_n · · Score: 1

      At the "first sound" of it.. it seemed like funny nerd rage to me ;)

    56. Re:EPIC FAIL by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If you compare Symbolics machines to the machines of these days (including SGI), it was like alien technology. No wonder they were first to adopt domain name before WWW and many other technologies.

      It was a known brand, in very high end scene.

    57. Re:EPIC FAIL by Pechkin000 · · Score: 1

      I was always partial to por.no myslef

  3. Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do we really need a tag to tell us it's a story?

    1. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Starlon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You joker, Anonymous Coward. Everyone knows it's you tagging these!

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    2. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My suspicious is that it is an automatic tag to differentiate it from journal entries, 'ask slashdot', firehose submissions, and the like.

    3. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna know how I got these tags?

    4. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      My suspicious is that it is an automatic tag to differentiate it from journal entries, 'ask slashdot', firehose submissions, and the like.

      Yes! Editors, would you pretty, pretty please make a FAQ so people will stop asking this? Thanks!

    5. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, but the OP's question remains valid.

    6. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      It's an internal slashcode thing, not a user being dumb (easy as it is to believe :p). Though why it gets displayed is anyone's guess...

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Funny

      For some reason though, it wont let us negate it with "!story"

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      I thought it was to differentiate the stories from all the non-stories that get posted.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    9. Re:Who is the joker who tags every story "story"? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      God Hates Tags.

  4. Stallman and symbolics by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 4, Informative

        That company crops up in various stories. Before Richard Stallman decided to launch the GNU project to give people freedom, he spent two years out-programming Symbolics as punishment for their destruction of MIT's hacker community. Here's where some of the story can be found, about half way down.

    1. Re:Stallman and symbolics by maxume · · Score: 1

      Given that LMI went bankrupt in 1987 (3 years after the end of the two year period you cite), while Symbolics continued to operate into the 1990s, it seems possible to construct an interpretation other than 'out-programming'.

      It certainly sounds like Stallman was very productive during that period.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Stallman and symbolics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:Stallman and symbolics by cstacy · · Score: 1

      And here's some more of the story. [danweinreb.org]

      [I can't mod up the OP because I already contributed]

  5. First .COM, not First Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    n/t

    1. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How is this informative if he says "first .com not domain".

      What was the first domain, Professor Hawking?

    2. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Did you and the two cluebots who modded you informative even bother to RTFT (Title)?

      It says First Domain Name Sold.

      All other domains prior to this symbolics.com domain were not sold, they were given to their (mostly) university, government and military owners for free.

    3. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong. Did you and the two cluebots who modded you informative even bother to RTFT (Title)?

      It says First Domain Name Sold.

      All other domains prior to this symbolics.com domain were not sold, they were given to their (mostly) university, government and military owners for free.

      You mean the title on the slasdot post that says "Internet's First Registered Domain Name Sold"? or the title on the article itself that says "Internet's First Registered Domain Is Finally Sold, But For How Much?"?

    4. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by Rantastic · · Score: 2, Informative

      It says First Domain Name Sold.

      No it doesn't and it wasn't sold. Back then all domain names were free for the asking. The title should be "The first registered .com domain name was just sold."

      --
      Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
    5. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by astrosmash · · Score: 2, Informative

      DNS was introduced in the mid-80s. Established internet domains (network, govt, military, universities) transitioned more slowly to the new system via the temporary .arpa TLD.

      Symbolics, on the other hand, jumped on board right away. symbolics.com is the oldest domain name in use today.

      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    6. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See RFC 920. The first domain was .ARPA, and you're a twit.

    7. Re:First .COM, not First Domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      symbolics.com is the oldest domain name in use today.

      That doesn't make it the first domain name, any more than the oldest person alive today is the first human.

  6. Re:WHO CARES? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

    Clearly I'm missing something that makes this important in the slightest.

    Free advertising for the new owner, of course.

  7. sales site for symbian or sybian by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 2, Funny

    take your pick

  8. Inaccurate title by koavf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There are several older domains, e.g. purdue.edu: http://whois.domaintools.com/purdue.edu

    1. Re:Inaccurate title by koavf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish I could figure out how to delete (stupid) comments. Please ignore and move along. Thanks.

  9. Summary is wrong by Rantastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you define the internet as the .com name space. The .edu name space is older and was just as much the internet.

    --
    Ask Slashdot: Where bad ideas meet poor googling skills.
    1. Re:Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barely. Nobody refers to the .edu bubble of the late 90's, nobody invests in a .edu startup, and no top 10 website list (by traffic) ends in .edu. Like history isn't what happened but what historians write, the internet is where people go, and whatever that may be, it ends in .com.

    2. Re:Summary is wrong by SEAL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to wikipedia:

      symbolics.com is actually older than any currently registered edu domain, beating Berkeley by a month.
      nordu.net was registered a couple months prior to symbolics.

      I'm not sure about .mil or deprecated .arpa domains - they are hard to check up on.

    3. Re:Summary is wrong by SEAL · · Score: 1

      Also for reference, the .edu namespace is neither older nor newer than the other generic TLDs. They were defined in October 1984 in RFC 920.

    4. Re:Summary is wrong by cstacy · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia:

      symbolics.com is actually older than any currently registered edu domain, beating Berkeley by a month.
      nordu.net was registered a couple months prior to symbolics.

      I'm not sure about .mil or deprecated .arpa domains - they are hard to check up on.

      The .ARPA domains predated the .COM domains. They were not "registered" per se, they were just the pre-DNS HOSTS file names with ".ARPA" appended to them.

    5. Re:Summary is wrong by magpie · · Score: 1

      Says someone on slashdot.org.

  10. Nice HW though! by KC1P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never drank the Lisp Kool-Aid so I wasn't into lispms, but we had a Symbolics machine in college (is 3600 a model? that's all my dusty brain can cough up) and the keyboard was a real work of art! You had to stare at it for a while just to notice the QWERTY part floating in the ocean of other keys. The UI was pretty slick too. If only there were something like this for a language I *liked*.

    1. Re:Nice HW though! by vbraga · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pictures for Lisp Machine keyboard.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    2. Re:Nice HW though! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yes, the 3600 was part of the Symbolics line. You might even still be able to get one. It was earlier in Symbolics' history. Hardware type-tagging of pointers and hardware garbage collection are the more interesting of the features. That, plus the GUI and thorough online documentation. Very cool stuff, regardless of your preferred programming syntax. It's not hard to imagine using the same technology to support fast execution and easier compilation for other dynamically-typed languages.

    3. Re:Nice HW though! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meta? Super? Hyper Keys!?

      Is that what RMS used to write Emacs? It would explain all the key combos...

    4. Re:Nice HW though! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think that a keyboard specifically designed for Lisp would have dedicated ( ) keys, instead of having to use shift...

    5. Re:Nice HW though! by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand this hostility to Lisp. I haven't used Lisp in a long time, but I wouldn't, say, turn up a job that required Lisp programming -- in fact I'd probably jump for it.

      Yes, there are all those ugly parentheses, but that just reminds you to keep procedure bodies short -- very, very short. It's kind of a mindset. In a way Lisp reminds me of Unix. The great thing about Unix was the "everything is a file" paradigm -- back in the day at least. It reduced the number of interfaces you had to know. That seems to be the philosophy of RESTful web services: applications manipulate the state of Web resources. In Lisp, everything is an s-expression that you process recursively; if you *have* to have one tool in your toolbox, that's a pretty powerful one, and you can make your own abstractions pretty easily. In what other language would implementing a simple interpreter for the language (or at least a simplified but recognizable form of the language) be a fairly basic exercise?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Nice HW though! by fmoliveira · · Score: 1

      I was expecting it was a joke with parentheses

    7. Re:Nice HW though! by danlip · · Score: 1

      ... and the keyboard was a real work of art! You had to stare at it for a while just to notice the QWERTY part floating in the ocean of other keys. The UI was pretty slick too. If only there were something like this for a language I *liked*.

      Hyper, Super, Meta, Symbol, Select, Local, Network, and a few others,
      as well as keys with a circle, triangle, and square. Fun! But no rows of function
      keys at the top, and no arrow keys (they used emacs style control sequences
      to move around) and no number pad, so it was really smaller than all modern
      full-sized keyboards. See: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/graphics/symbolics-keyboard-fullsize.jpg

      I used Symbolics when I worked at an AI company, 1996-2000, long after the Symbolics company itself was
      out of business. Some were big space heaters the size of end tables. The newer ones were like the original
      Sun pizza boxes. They were practically supercomputers when they were built (and had a comparable
      price tag) but by the time I was using them they were stuggling to keep up with cheap PCs.

      I never drank the Lisp Kool-Aid so I wasn't into lispms ...

      Lisp is super cool, drink the Kool-Aid. Not so practical for lots of things, but cool.

    8. Re:Nice HW though! by danlip · · Score: 1

      You would think that a keyboard specifically designed for Lisp would have dedicated ( ) keys, instead of having to use shift...

      It did! You can't quite see it in the picture, but the ( ) { } and [ ] keys were swapped around relative to a PC keyboard,
      with the ( ) next to the letter P and did not require a shift.

  11. 15 March 1985 by Bozzio · · Score: 1

    I can't be the only one to have thought of ...

    The ides of March... Et tu, Marty McFly?

    ... can I?

    --
    I just pooped your party.
  12. utter fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail. You should have posted 'first host!'

  13. Re:Nice HW though! -- Software too! by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

    Yup, the 3600 was the first model. Followed by the 3670 and 3640, etc, if memory serves. I had the pleasure of coding extensively on, and administering, a network of several of them in the mid-80s. Led to a career-long love of LISP and EMACS. Great machines; you just had to reseat the boards on the backplane every so often...

  14. the end result by Eil · · Score: 1

    Over that time, we've seen the Internet grow to the tune of 180,000,000+ registered domains, and thousands more are being added each and every day."

    And 99% of them are registered by spammers and professional cybersquatters. Thanks, ICANN and the domain name registrar industry.

  15. Why Symbolics? by lennier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    " It's hard to say why this domain name was the first registered back on March 15, 1985,"

    I'd guess maybe because Symbolics was the original MIT spinoff Lisp machine company, and during the 80s Lisp was the Artificial Intelligence language poised to become THE lingua franca for computing, everywhere.

    The GUI was invented on Lisp machines. Emacs was inspired by Lisp machines.

    1985 was the heyday of the Strategic Computing Initiative which funnelled US $1 billion into the attempt to build, basically, a literal Skynet - the last great push for coordinated defense AI.

    In 1985 Cisco was a year old and ARPANET had only been running this newfangled TCP/IP thing for two. If you were to pick one company to, ahem, symbolise the shiny face of tomorrow - well, other than maybe IBM or Bolt, Beranek and Newman - yeah, Symbolics would have been way up there.

    I still miss that future we didn't get to see.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    1. Re:Why Symbolics? by cstacy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " It's hard to say why this domain name was the first registered back on March 15, 1985,"

      I'd guess maybe because Symbolics was the original MIT spinoff Lisp machine company, and during the 80s Lisp was the Artificial Intelligence language poised to become THE lingua franca for computing, everywhere.

      [...]

      I still miss that future we didn't get to see.

      Some of your details are a little off, but you are conceptually accurate. I lived that future, and since then I've felt like I've been transported back to the stone knives and bearskins, and Spock is nowhere in sight.

    2. Re:Why Symbolics? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > The GUI was invented on Lisp machines.
      > Emacs was inspired by Lisp machines.

      Indeed, it's difficult to say which is the more important innovation.

      > I still miss that future we didn't get to see.

      I think you underestimate lisp's influence on subsequent languages. Granted, it is not the MOST influential programming language in history. That would be C. But Lisp might be second place, or close to it. The entire functional paradigm comes from Lisp and its various descendants. So does garbage collection. And I would argue that the combination of these two things is what sets modern languages (like Perl and the various ones that have come out since) apart from third-generation languages (like C).

      Every time you use a programming language that has list operations (e.g., a map operator, or grep, or a built-in sort primitive) you are living in that future, built on foundations set by lisp. Incidentally, the internet as you know it would not function as it does without these languages. (Did I mention that SQL is one of them? It is *heavily* influenced by the functional paradigm. Javascript also.)

      Admittedly, it has taken a while to get there. Lisp was ahead of its time.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:Why Symbolics? by peter303 · · Score: 1

      Symboics was among the first "workstation" companies. A workstation was computer small enough and cheap enough to fit in an office. "Small" was still the size of a washign machine and "cheap" was an employee's annual salary. But this was compared to mini-computers which did not fit in this range. The lisp machines from A.I. companies were first out of the gate, just before UNIX companies.

    4. Re:Why Symbolics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough, Bolt,Beranek and Newman was bought by Raytheon yesterday.

      http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/09/raytheon_agrees.html

  16. LISP-Machines by Casandro · · Score: 1

    But where will I buy my LISP machines from then?

    1. Re:LISP-Machines by cstacy · · Score: 1

      But where will I buy my LISP machines from then?

      Ebay. Although few people want to sell theirs.

    2. Re:LISP-Machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well luckily they still sell them.

  17. Right. Article describes the beginning of ".com" by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was perhaps the first domain name registered under ".com", not the first domain name.

    What you're seeing here is the beginning of DNS replacing HOSTS.TXT. Before DNS, every site had to FTP over a new copy of the HOSTS.TXT file from SRI-NIC to update the name to IP address translation. There were thousands of names in HOSTS.TXT before the transition, and they all predate this one. Many were grandfathered into ".com". I had domain names in HOSTS.TXT from 1982 or so.

    The original idea was to have a much more hierarchical system. Big organizations would have one (1) domain, like "FORD", with other domains under that. So the global name file was expected to be small.

  18. Wait, what? by michaelleung · · Score: 0

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought DEC.com was the first domain or the first something.

  19. You need a history lesson by WebCowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unless you define the internet as the .com name space.

    The .com TLD is not the internet name space, but the internet namespace does include the .com TLD, so it standa to reason that a .com domain could be the first registered on the internet.

    The .edu name space is older and was just as much the internet.

    .arpa, .com, .edu, .gov, .mil and .org TLDs were all established simultaneously in an RFC published in the fall of 1984. None of them is technically older than any of the others. Practically speaking though the first officially registered and functioning domain name on the internet is SYMBOLICS.COM came into being on March 1985, predating the approximately simultaneous registration of several university .edu domains by about a month.

    If you want to be pedantic there were perhaps dozens of internet domain names that simultaneously became the "first domain names". These were all .arpa domains and were all temporary. Prior to the establishment of any internet-wide root nameservers resolving hostnames to domain names used a resolver that read a locally stored text file called hosts. The hosts file was generated and maintained centrally by university researchers and manually downloaded by sysadmins to EVERY COMPUTER ON THE INTERNET that needed to resolve hostnames. The "official" hosts file of the internet was flat in structure--there was no defined levels like today. An informal structure was established using hyphens as separators (a host might be named in a pattern like COMPUTERNAME-UNIVERSITYNAME) but there was no standards applied or technical significance to the structure as there is in today's DNS.

    When the nameservers came online they were set up with the official hosts file as it existed at that time, within the .arpa TLD. The .arpa TLD was meant to be temporary--it allowed internet hosts to transition to DNS client resolvers from hostname files seamlessly. Config files, databases, etc. may have referred to hosts by name, and by using the temporary .arpa TLD the name resolver could be changed without disruption (note how name resolution works to this day--if you do not use a FQDN your computer appends the supplied hostname to the domain of your own host--since at the beginning all domain names were .arpa this scheme allowed dns resolution to behave exactly like the original hostname file).

    All those .arpa domains are gone now--but the .arpa TLD did become permanent--when standards for doing REVERSE lookups were established the domain in-addr.arpa was created. There are a handful of .arpa domains that exist to manage the inner workings of various DNS functions, but .arpa has never been open to domain registrations from the public--all .arpa domains are established through internet standards.

    So, though .arpa domains were technically the firs, YOU are wrong and the article summary was RIGHT. symbolics com was the first REGISTERED domain on the entire public internet.

    1. Re:You need a history lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      symbolics com was the first REGISTERED domain on the entire public internet.

      Wrong. See the other comment about nordu.net - if you trust the accuracy of whois entries of that age.

      Also as part of the history lesson, MILNET split off from ARPANET in 1983, and then became the Defense Data Network. So it is very likely, but not easily verifiable, that ddn.mil was one of the early registered domains. Another one: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl.gov). Once again I can't find a clear registration date. They had close ties with UCLA at the time, though, and were involved in the early Internet efforts. LLNL discovered the Morris worm in 1988.

  20. Perspective by xenobyte · · Score: 3, Funny

    Over that time, we've seen the Internet grow to the tune of 180,000,000+ registered domains, and thousands more are being added each and every day.

    Actually there's only a few thousand 'serious' domains registered... the rest are just junk domains registered by spammers and malware peddlers... ;)

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:Perspective by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      like microsoft.com, windows.com and xbox.com?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  21. So what happened to Symbolics to make them sell? by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have they gone bust or did they go bust years ago and what was left of the company kept the name? Did a former CTO squirrel it away somewhere for a rainy day and $$$$ ?

  22. I own symbolics by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    You own a company called Symbolics

    I do? I mean... I do... I do own symbolics, yes.

    They're not in debt, are they?

  23. We're the Symbolics by ciaran.mchale · · Score: 1

    There was a British comedy duo called the Symbolics. One member of the pair introduced themselves to audiences with "We're the Symbolics. I'm Sim. And he's the other one."

  24. Internet directories by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd say that there were some directories, bridging the gap between word of mouth knowledge of domain names and search engines capable of indexing the entire WWW. Yahoo, for instance, was more useful when it was more useful in its early days than the search engines of the time, because it included a hierarchical directory of websites. I'm sure you had something different in mind, but similar nonetheless. It was the explosion in websites that made it untenable to maintain such a directory, though, and that's why Google was so perfectly timed.

    1. Re:Internet directories by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Learn to proofread, ari_j! I am more useful when I am more useful with my eyes fully open and my gullet fully caffeinated. =)

  25. Re:Right. Article describes the beginning of ".com by ari_j · · Score: 1

    The article refers to the first registered domain name. Whether the SRI-NIC hosts file counts as domain registration is arguable, but symbolics.com is definitely the oldest domain name in the current registration system. It's something akin to being the first book printed on the Gutenberg style of press - not the first book, but still very cool.

  26. Have I got a deal for you! by scratchpaper · · Score: 1

    I've got the perfect domain name for you! Has only had one owner for the last 25 years, and it was a little-old lady who only accessed it on Sundays! Whaddya say? Should I start the paperwork?

  27. nethead.com by Nethead · · Score: 0

    I just realized that my domain was registered on the tenth anniversary!

          Domain Name: NETHEAD.COM
                Created on: 15-Mar-95

    It's also my mother's birthday. Too cool.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  28. Sybolics.com ? by bruceslog · · Score: 1

    I was sure the first domain would have been sex.com

    --
    If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
    1. Re:Sybolics.com ? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sex is not symbolic?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. I have seen a Symbolics machine in action by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Back in 1992 or 1993, I saw Symbolics machine in a very high end animation guys office. He said to his friend (who I have tailed) "let me show something", turned on a HD monitor and started to show his animations in 1080P full glory. If anyone from AV scene, it is Grafitti Design from Istanbul.

    When I went to his back office, I saw a tower having "Symbolics" brand, it was like 2x big ATX case and the room was needing its own air conditioner.

    That LISP machine was really something from future. Oh I also made mistake of talking about my Amiga 1200 to a guy in such level ;) That is how I remember the year and my shame.

  30. Thousands of domains added each day, but... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Over that time, we've seen the Internet grow to the tune of 180,000,000+ registered domains, and thousands more are being added each and every day.

    Is that including or excluding spammers?

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.