|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: I've just tried new.net's plugin. Don't.
At 08:33 PM 3/14/2001, Simon Higgs wrote: So what practical steps does New.net need to take to reduce the load on the help desks? Going out of business, getting rid of the dumb plug-in, and using a proper root server network have already been suggested. What else would help minimize the load on the network help desks? Looks like you already have three practical solutions right there. I'll be taking real world solutions that can be offered here to the New.Net CEO myself.I won't bother to solve someone else's problems unless I believe in their cause (I don't) or am under their employ (I'm not). The root of the matter (do pardon the pun) is this: New.net is trying to change the way the Internet works, without consulting any of the people or organizations that make it work. They have attempted to do this not at the root-server level, where by all accounts it should be done, but at the end-user level, with an OS specific patch(which, I imagine, flummoxes your resolver timeouts and overall decreases DNS usability). In their attempt to reinvent the wheel, they have ignored published standards, paid no attention to history, scoffed at proper channels, pissed on the correct authorities, attempted to strongarm thousands of businesses into playing their way, made silly promises with no hope for realization, and basically left common sense raped and crying in the corner. Their technical specs are fuzzy, with no end in sight for the new TLD's they introduce (go to the homepage- oh look! you can vote for a new TLD! dear god, what a disaster that could turn into... running-shoes.nike is just a few million bucks away). On top of all this, they have the gall to sell a currently-valueless product to unsuspecting consumers (a process some like to call 'fraud') and nowhere bother to mention that their plugin (or any of their windows-specific hacks on http://www.new.net/help_network.tp) will give them root authority for your nameservice needs. Nor do they mention that email sent to your spiffy domain won't work, aside from a tiny 'white lie' on the FAQ page that would make a tobacco lawyer blush. On top of all this virtual piracy and electronic hijacking, they have the temerity to tell interested end-users that if it doesn't work they should "Contact your ISP and ask them to `turn on' access. The steps for an ISP to provide access are rather simple", never implying that there may be a valid reason for us to all[1] say "No way". The Readers Digest Analogy: Just because I think that 10.0.0.0/8 is perfectly good unclaimed space doesn't mean that announcing routes to it is a bright idea. ~Ben, as always, speaking his mind and not (necessarily) that of his employer [1] Based on reason and logic, what we *should* all say. Last I checked, twenty companies independently deciding not to do something universally stupid is not grounds for an anti-trust case --- Ben Browning <[email protected]> The River Internet Access Co. Network Operations 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
|