Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy 190
netbuzz writes "The fact that a month and a half has gone by and Wikipedia still hasn't followed through on Jimmy Wales public threat to remove its domain name registrations from GoDaddy over the latter's early support of SOPA has some concerned that the online encyclopedia may have had a change of heart. After all, GoDaddy did withdraw its backing of the controversial antipiracy legislation, at least publicly. But fear not, SOPA foes, as Wikipedia says its days with GoDaddy are indeed numbered and that number is getting very small."
SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's also not forget all the other ways GoDaddy sucks:
So fuck GoDaddy. There's plenty of registrars with better service that cost less anyway.
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
and don't forget also:
The GoDaddy CEO publicly supports waterboarding [gizmodo.com.au]
GoDaddy already has an history of shutting down domains without requiring to see a court order
GoDaddy has a long history of getting its customer servers/accounts hacked and not saying anything about it to its customers
And during the SOPA exodus, which is still going on, it's been dragging its feet [washingtonpost.com] on domain transfers (a violation of ICANN rules and regulations).
Hopefully, they'll have their domain name registry privileges taken away by ICANN because of that last one.
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Put two fish of the same species in a proper environment and safe from predators and after one year you have 10000 of them.
Put two elephants in an equivalent scenario and after one year you have two elephants. After two years you may have three. After 10 years, all things perfect, you'll have about 5 of them.
Now go back to the end of year one... kill one fish, kill one elephant. Do you see where this is going?
Re: (Score:2)
Put two fish of the same species in a proper environment and safe from predators and after one year you have 10000 of them.
Put two elephants in an equivalent scenario and after one year you have two elephants.
wow. how do you do that ? i mean, shortening elephant pregnancy in half is mighty impressive.
on a slightly more serious note, yes, godaddy seems to be quite some bit too evil to deal with.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, in your example, if you go back to year one and kill one fish and one elephant, you would have one f
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't say anything about bears, so why are you assuming he's a hypocrite?
Also, that may be because the population is larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Did i mention the wonderful deer steaks, and deer meatloaf I had last year was super yummy!
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL.
After following your link to waterboarding, which then leads to another page 60 links deep proclaiming the GoDaddy CEO supports waterboarding, the only thing it eventually led to is a blog posting by the CEO calling Guantanamo Bay an "important asset" to protect Americans. So yes, I suppose you could say he therefore supports waterboarding, in the same way that if a staff member at Guantanamo Bay was into BDSM, you could say Bob Parson supports BDSM tooly. Or in the same way that you support Open Source, of which Linux is a leading example, which contains components written by Hans Reiser, who was a murderer; and therefore you publicly support murder.
Re: (Score:2)
or because my Workmate went to school with James McAvoy, who starred in X-Men First Class with Kevin Bacon means that I'm friends with Kevin Bacon!
Re: (Score:3)
Thus GD does support waterboarding. I was expecting that to be FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, that's kinda like saying a politician supports rape because he thinks prisons are a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like the Guantanamo detainees are waterboarding each other... or... ARE THEY?
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, that's kinda like saying a politician supports rape because he thinks prisons are a good idea.
A politician DOES support rape if he supports the prison-industrial complex. Period, the end.
Your simile is not sufficiently similar. Gitmo exists to behave in ways that we do not permit in other prisons, and thus, supporting Gitmo is explicitly supporting the behavior that goes on at Gitmo. Logic? You fail it.
Re: (Score:2)
A politician DOES support rape if he supports the prison-industrial complex. Period, the end.
Or put another way:
Logic? You fail it.
seriously, don't try to defend Bob Parsons (Score:4, Insightful)
Bob Parsons on Guantamo Bay [archive.org]:
"The interrogation techniques at Gitmo are very mild."
(Note from Wikipedia: By May 2011 there had been at least six suicides and hundreds of suicide attempts in GuantÃnamo that are in public knowledge.)
"Key prisoners at Gitmo still have not talked -- because our interrogation methods are so weak."
(Are we really going to get into a sincere discussion about the efficacy of torture? What about we pause first at the idea of whether it's ethical?)
"Given the type of individuals we have incarcerated at Gitmo [guardian.co.uk] (all of them would love to gouge out your eyes-"
(including children and old men? [guardian.co.uk])
Bob Parsons is the ugliest face of America. Hateful and uninformed, but pushing to make things work the way he thinks they should. Don't be like Bob. And don't empower him with your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I went for a Hostgator reseller account. But just till they get too evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elephant-killing thing? That's a first. Got a link?
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:4, Informative)
REGISTERING DOMAINS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE SEARCHED ON GODADDY AND THEN PARKING THEM AND DEMANDING YOU PAY MORE THAN DOMAIN REGISTRATION FEES TO GET THEM.
Sorry about the all caps, but that is far and away the most evil thing GoDaddy has ever done, because as a registrar their job is to register domains, not speculate on them. I hope they all get ass cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to get them to register/park a whole lot of gibberish domains? They're never going to sell gjioewjr3njk32.com.
Re:SOPA isn't the only reason GoDaddy sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've enjoyed namecheap's services
Re: (Score:2)
While NameCheap is ICANN-accredited, it looks like nearly all of their domain-related services are handled by eNom [wikipedia.org], who doesn't seem like the most above-board place around. Sure, eNom has a ton of domains registered with them, but that doesn't mean they're not shady.
Personally, I'd rather go with Gandi or NearlyFreeSpeech.net.
Re: (Score:3)
http://sibername.com/ [sibername.com]
I've had very good experience with them, and *very* good customer service. They got me out of a serious bind with a previous registrar who closed shop on a Saturday, without notice, and stopped returning calls. They helped me to expedite the transfer of my domain to them on a Sunday morning. I did have a major advantage in that I still had all of the original registration paperwork and passwords from CIRA (.ca domain), and their head office is across the street from where I work, but I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the part where they have mistakenly transferred domains (sex.com being the largest but not the only example) and then not only refused to fix the problem but argued in court that they shouldn't be responsible for or need to fix the problem. Not to mention the whole frontrunning thing they got caught doing a few years back where they registered domain names people searched for in advance so that they would be the only people who could register the domain.
On the evil scale network solutions are wo
A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-...because no-one gives a fuck about those things
I do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but tasteless obnoxious adverts are definitely one of the reasons why I'll never use GoDaddy. They put out a poor image and quite honestly would make me feel dirty if I were to support them by registering there.
forgivness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:forgivness (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.
Re:forgivness (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with being a statistical outlier? Elections aren't some horserace that you win by voting for the candidate that gets office, they are won when public opinion changes.
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
If you want to effect change via voting:
1) Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
2) Vote for the least bad of the two major party nominees at the federal level
3) Vote for third parties at the local and state level
Non-federal politics matter a whole lot -- more than federal politics for many aspects of life -- and are easier to influence. Plus the pool of people who get taken seriously at a federal level tends to be drawn from those who have been successful at the lower levels. If you can get a great candidate to be a popular and successful state senator, then he's got a good shot at becoming governor. If you've got a popular and successful independent governor, I know a whole lot of people who'd love to see him become president. It's admittedly a long shot, but it's better than throwing away your vote every cycle in a protest that 99.9% of the populace won't even notice.
Re:forgivness (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't back that up, I don't believe it to begin with, and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible, not to mention the problem with induction.
There exists threshold j below which your vote matters not at all in the minds of dullards who believe this. At some point you have to cross the dullard threshhold. Only a non-dullard can move the dullards. But even the non-dullard concedes that there exists k much less than j below which his inductive impetus is wasted. Only a double non-dullard can move the non-dullards. But even a double non-dullard concedes that there exists m much less than k ...
On a more practical basis, there was a time in the nineties in a Canadian election where the dismal third option failed to clear a threshold I didn't even know about: percentage of popular vote which granted them official party status and the resources which flow from that. All the idiots were saying "don't waste your vote" over votes this party desperately needed to clear this bar.
The big one in America, of course, is excluding Ralph Nadar (or anyone like him) from the presidential debate. I think that's the worst possible outcome of all, because it grants the asylum complete control over the speaking points. All you have left are two candidates promising the same small opposites. We're left arguing over the colour of the paint rather than whether to adopt a gasoline or diesel engine.
These throw-away votes don't decide between the donkey and the elephant, but they have a big impact on whether good candidates, or at least strong voices for a different future, bother to show up at all.
I believe America should outlaw two party debate in presidential elections. There should always be at least a third voice who gets equal time, selected by whatever mechanism proves workable. (This is probably a long term arms race where the incumbents constantly work to scupper whatever worked the time before.)
In fact, I wouldn't mind having an entire panel of third party voices who collectively get 1/3 of the total debate time. They can have a bidding system among themselves for who gets to cut in on which issues.
Your rule of thumb is a good one for people who don't wish to think. Not even a little bit.
Re:forgivness (Score:4, Informative)
You can't back that up (1), I don't believe it to begin with (2), and the argument from continuity suggests it's not even logically possible (3), not to mention the problem with induction (4).
1. Yes, I can, through experience and basic knowledge of how people tend to approach politics. I know, I know, "problem of induction". We'll come to that.
2. Clearly, but your belief is not required for it to be true.
3. You're misusing the continuity argument. Clearly there exists some threshold at which third party votes matter. In practice, that threshold is far above what we're currently capable of reaching. The continuity argument only applies when you can reach both endpoints.
4. The "problem" of induction is a philosophical one. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that no numerical system can be both consistent and complete, but that doesn't stop me from using math. Likewise, while the "problem" of induction means that my never having seen the Cubs win a World Series does not make such an event impossible, I'm sure as all hell not gonna bet on them.
Your recursive stack of "dullards", while cute, misses a key point. It assumes that as you progress in levels (j, k, m, n4, n5, n6...), as your level approaches infinity the threshold will drop to zero. Maybe instead the threshold asymptotically approaches 10%. Below that level, even the infinitely non-dullardly don't care about the third party vote. And before you raise yourself as a counter example, note that we can have also have a class of double-dullards (don't complain about the offensive terminology -- you picked it) who always care.
In short, you're trying too hard to apply simple mathematical reasoning to a process that is far more complex than you have accounted for. I don't doubt that it is theoretically possible to model human behavior in such a way, but your name's not Hari Seldon, and you're not going to perform a psychohistorical analysis of American voting trends in a Slashdot comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever method works...
AND the results are secret FROM the candidates, AND the public, until the debate.
The third candidate should be a total unknown to both existing parties, and they should enter the lion's cage TOTALLY unharmed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck that shit.
The UK has it's first Green MP a year or so ago because people actually voted for the candidate they wanted, rather than who they thought had a chance of winning.
If you keep voting for primary Democrat/Republicans, guess what, that's what you'll keep getting!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in a district of 70k people, with three major parties to divide votes between instead of just two. In the US, the average congressional district is nearly ten times that size (~650k), and there are only two major parties.
And out of curiosity, how much has that one MP been able to do? She's not part of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government, and while I admit my knowledge of British politics is shaky (having come mostly from being stuck in a hotel that only received the BBC and some weird Japanese cra
Re: (Score:2)
She may not actually change the content of any government legislation, or even swing a vote in the House of Commons, but she has a far more powerful voice to espouse her views and challenge the complacent Westminster establishment.
The best thing is that if she does a half-decent job for her constituents, they might return her at the next election as she's not liable to lose votes due to the ruling party losing popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for people throwing their vote behind an underdog, if that's who they believe in.
The federal political landscape has changed in Australia thanks to people voting for a minor party, the Australian Greens.
Check out this link showing the Greens' progress over the past 15 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens#2010_election_onward [wikipedia.org] ... then they held 2% ... now they're at 13% of the Senate!
At one point they held no seats
Interestingly, a notable portion of the Greens' votes are "protest vot
Re: (Score:3)
The UK has a completely different election system in which minor parties are not completely neutered. In the USA the candidate who finishes first wins, even if he only got 30% of the vote. Small parties only have a chance in such a system if there are no big parties.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
Are you voting in function of what the public opinion is, or are you actually depositing your vote on what you personally believe is the best candidate?
You don't get any prize in voting on the winning candidate. Voting for a public election isn't a groupon deal. You vote on the candidate you believe is the best candidate for office, and then election officials count your vote. If your candidate doesn't win then tough luck, at least that candidate got your vote and you actually did your job as a citizen.
Now
Re: (Score:2)
I cast each and every vote in the manner that I think will best benefit my country. You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering. Not only that, but that to do otherwise means I'm somehow failing in my duty. Noted, and duly ignored. I will continue to work my ass off in every election to maximize benefit to the country, instead of running off after some Hollywood-inspired dream that things would all be perfect
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that I should ignore what's best for the country and follow my heart, and tough luck if that causes widespread suffering.
The fact that you cannot vote for the candidate you believe is best for the country, because that would lead to widespread suffering is an indication that the electoral system is fundamentally broken. By participating in that system you legitimize it and further increase the widespread suffering you fear. If you're not fighting for people who would fix the voting syste
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that US elections are doomed by that one turn only thing... But even then you are looking at things in an inverted way. It is the pool that must change because of public opinion, not the other way around.
By the way, are your elections for Congress also not representative? Because that is the most important vote you have (yeah, even at the US).
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get a great candidate to be a popular and successful state senator, then he's got a good shot at becoming
A state senator moving all the way up to President? Unheard of...oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17.
Depends on the person. Depends on the time. I don't think the solution is to simply give up.
Before the primaries even got to my state (Score:2)
Primary for the best candidate you can find (a lot of people ignore this step, and then go on to bemoan that they only have two choices in the general election)
In 2008, my preferred candidate was mathematically eliminated before the primaries even got to my state.
Non-federal politics matter a whole lot
The article is about copyright law, which is exclusively federal. How do non-federal politics matter to copyright? Or are you talking about the option of somehow getting three-fourths of the states to put substantive limits on Congress's power under the copyright clause?
Re: (Score:2)
Our current options are a twatwaffle who hasn't even read the fucking Constitution, versus a pretty terrible businessman who hasn't read the Constitution, a Theocratic frothy mixture of lube and fecal material who makes the Ayatollah look like an Atheist, and a douchebag that was kicked out of Congress. There's a slim chance we might get the chance for a crazy old guy who's read the Constitution and therefore will accomplish nothing, because by virtue of understanding the actual powers granted to the Federal government, he scares the fuck out of both Democraps and Republicunts.
That, sir, is the best description of candidates I've read yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe... OTOH our populace is also terribly apathetic and has almost no long-term political memory. Getting 10 million people to click a link or sign a petition after having the issue thrown in their face all day is a good accomplishment, but how many of those people will a) go to the polls, and b) remember what it was they cared so much about 10 months previously?
I know it's more of that cynicism, but i'm just not convinced it will be a major factor come election time.
Re: (Score:2)
Thees are all true statements. But it's about shaking up the status quo, and trying to choosing the lesser evil, and sending a message. And if you trying to say you have lost faith in the whole gosh darn system and just stop giving a shit - I can understand your frustration - I share it. But giving up and doing nothing is not going to help.
"If the first, at lea
Re: (Score:2)
Then do that in the primary. Do that by supporting third parties in the run up to congressional elections. Don't roll out of bed on election day and think that checking the third box on the ballot means anything thing about your ability to overturn the system. When it comes down to it, nothing short of a massive cultural shift is going to overcome the power of the two party system as a whole, and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning?
Are you aware of what happens if you, or anyone, refuses to vote for "the third party with little chance of winning"? I'll tell you what happens: the third party candidate has little chance of winning.
Think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's important to vote for winners. Which is why I wait to vote until after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other side of the coin though (er, so to speak) i wonder if this is really the best tactic. I mean, i couldn't wish for the fallout to land on a more deserving company, but will this affect Wikipedia's bargaining position for similar situations in the future? Threatening to punish people for actions you don't like is just fine (well, assuming you stick to legal methods of course) but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
switching your hosting around isn't really something you can do on the turn of a dime
Exactly. It does take time, especially for a large organization, to find a suitable replacement for services.
.....but if they recant and you follow through on your threats regardless, would the next company you deal with have any reason to recant?
That's not the point. There is no forgiveness for GoDaddy. Absolute Utter Destruction Required. They KNOW better.
Some actions are not possible to take back. Yes, I will compare it to murder. You just can't take it back. Do I care that the murderer is blubbering in the court room? Nope. Not at all. Fry his ass.
That is what it really comes down too. A deterrent. When we partially hang GoDaddy, cut off their balls, disembowel them, chop of their head, and distribute the remaining portions of their body on spikes to the far reaches of the Internet it will stand as warning to all companies to not support laws that threaten the base functionality of the Internet and a free and open network.
Their cries for mercy fall on deaf ears and hardened resolve.
Re:To be fair... (Score:5)
Uhhhh... yeah okay.
That might be true if Wikipedia was being unreasonable. If I knew there was a potential big client out there with a lot of media clout that was known to be unreasonable and difficult to work with I would probably pass on servicing them too. However, taking a stance against something like SOPA, which anybody remotely involved with Internet knows is bad, very very bad, is hardly unreasonable.
Saying SOPA is political is like saying we could have rational discourse about the *possibility* of owning African Americans as slaves and starting up our "import business" all over again to compete with China on low cost labor.
No. SOPA is only political in the remotely tangential sense that it involves some politicians. Other than that, there is no rational basis on the pro-SOPA side to enact such dangerous and draconian laws.
Pro life and anti-evolution have more rational arguments and positions than SOPA and could be considered a valid political debate amongst the citizenry. SOPA is just flat out insanity with no possible redeeming virtue towards society in any way, shape, or form.
Political my ass. To characterize it as such it to give it validity. It has none whatsoever.
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)
It's still not political and I am delusional, ignorant, or refusing to accept reality.
Political, in the contemporary sense, and in this context, means that it is an argument about laws, regulations, policy, or a school of thought on how society should be administered to the benefit of the society. There can two or more sides to the argument, but what they all have in common is at least the pretense that it is beneficial towards society and serves to protect it.
I deny SOPA that status. While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction. Not FISA, not the Patriot Act, not Abortion, not Gay Marriage, etc. Every single one them has some sort of basis to support it. Some sort of rationale in which the American Way of Life (tm) is protected and allowed to flourish, even if I may disagree with it.
SOPA is pure corruption and abuse in its most distilled form. It is the most direct assault on intelligence, liberty, and common sense that I have been witness to in my entire life.
I don't know of any stronger terms that I can state just how evil SOPA *is*. For me to acknowledge it as political means that it there is some sort of public interest served in the debate. I just can't see that or say it.
Re: (Score:2)
When two or more people met, everything they do is political. There is no possible modern meaning different from that.
But, of course, that also puts in a ridiculous light the people complaining that Wikipedia is being political. Of course it is. Choosing GD was also a political move, ditto for deciding to host pages.
Now, of course, that assumes we need one more reason for ridicularizing people that complain that NGOs are acting in a political way. I would disagree here.
Re: (Score:2)
While politicians may be involved in it, there is no valid discussion, no valid arguments, and no valid sides supporting SOPA. That is why it is not political. It is entirely one-sided. No other argument in government can claim such distinction.
Cannabis prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't take their money- they might not keep giving us money forever!"
It's probably for the best that you aren't running a hosting company.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like I don't care to be publicly bullied over whatever their cause-of-the-month is. They've done it once, they'll do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't own a business do you?
That "I don't want your money, because you already demonstrated that if I start to work contrary to your interest you'll stop giving me your money" is ridiculous. If you want a hint, when you start a business don't act contrary to your clients' interest. They don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've owned several over the years in fact. And I've stood up multiple times against customers who wanted to bully me into running my business they way they thought it should be run.
What's abundantly clear is that you're clueless about running a business and clueless about the issue at hand. It's not "I have to work in the customers interest", which is (duh) common sense. It's "not being held under the threat of being publicly bullied over their next cause-of-the-month". Now that they've done it once, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Godaddy didn't really recant.
Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not depend on GoDaddy for anything other than domain registrar services. They don't use them for DNS. They don't use them for hosting of any kind. So actually, yes, they literally can switch to another registrar on the turn of a dime. I've seen it done with corporate sites fielding millions of page views a month, and downtime should be precisely zero. Nothing changes aside from the registrar name in the whois info.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia is a top ten website in the world (see: http://www.alexa.com/topsites [alexa.com] ).
Taking their time is due diligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anybody use GD for hosting?
OMFG (Score:2)
they are waiting till their next billing cycle, news at 11
I finally quit godaddy this week (Score:5, Informative)
And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? (Score:5, Informative)
And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? It's just domain registration. Wikipedia isn't hosted by GoDaddy.
There's a hierarchy of registrars. At the top is MarkMonitor, which registers domains like "ford.com". If you have to ask how much their registration costs, you can't afford it. This is where you register a "must stay up" domain. If anything goes wrong with a MarkMonitor registration, alarms go off and teams of DNS admins and lawyers swing into action.
Network Solutions is a reasonable registrar for corporate domains. They have "amazon.com", for example. If something goes wrong, you can usually get them ont he phone and get them to do something.
Much further down is GoDaddy. But they're not the bottom. Below GoDaddy are the bulk registrars, like Enom. That's where you register junk domains for link farms, domaining, and other dubious activities. At the bottom are the registrars in the ICANN list that don't even have valid contact information. It's not clear what they're doing, but it's probably not good.
Re:And this costs GoDaddy what, $2.95? (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs them reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Network Solutions is, in fact, a horrible registrar for corporate domains. This winter we changed our DNS from NetSol to Amazon Route 53. When NetSol repoints domains, it *immediately* starts serving generic "parking page" A records from the old DNS server. Combine this with the fact that many ISPs ignore the SOA TTL record, and you have a domain that's down for over a day for your customers at BellSouth, Cox, RCN, and probably others. We did get them on the phone, and was told "that's the way it works".
Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, I had a domain that was registered with GoDaddy for 9 years and I was swapped over to Gandi.net within an hour or less.
Re: (Score:2)
But did you request that change? :-)
Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Have you ever tried to switch from GoDaddy?? (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't there a Wikipedia article on how to unregister from GoDaddy?
Re: (Score:2)
There was, but it was deemed not relevant, and erased.
Re: (Score:2)
No problems here. I tried a domain I use for testing first, no issues at all moving it to namecheap. That was after GoDaddy sabotaged them and they called GoDaddy out on it though. Moved my other 3 domains a few days later, again no issues at all.
"Wikipedia Hasn't Forgiven GoDaddy" (Score:2)
This is not like moving your blog's DNS (Score:4, Informative)
People don't seem to get that for a seriously popular site that must not go down, it's just not the same class of phenomenon as picking a registrar more or less at random (the same process by which people ended up on GoDaddy in the first place) to move your blog's DNS to. It's literally taken weeks to make absolutely sure that the transition damn well will go smoothly. This on top of, like, the actual work the WMF is supposed to do. AIUI, there should be an announcement next week or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with that, it's still not a big issue. Just with a company like that, I'm sure there's a bunch of bureaucracy to go through and other things that are higher priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - such as the other WIkipedia SOPA protest, which I understand had some small effectiveness.
Re:Fun, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's being a bit simplistic.
If I walked into a local restaurant and received poor service and bad tasting food, the people there might be a bit dismissive when I complain loudly and tell them that I am going "blog that shit all over the Internet".
Now if President Obama walked in (unlikely I know) and then mentioned how shitty the place was to the White House press core, it might be a little more devastating.
Both of us spent the same amount of money, and represent the same amount of loss in the future on an individual basis, but one certainly stings a bit more.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly enough you don't need to be President to destroy a restaurants reputation(or anything's reputation). Hell, you don't even need to be important. You just need to know important people, or be close enough to important people to do it. I know that whole six degrees or four degrees of separation thing is fine and dandy but it does work.
I've seen it in action on more than one occasion where businesses were blackballed by an entire community based on the word of mouth of two people who were effectively n
Re:I won't be donating to Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that most people believe they are doing TheRightThing(TM) most of the time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ivan the terrible, OBL, George Washington, you, me, grandma, and the wiggles, did not get to where they did by believing what they were doing was evil. For example if you could ask OBL what he did with his life he would probably tell you with genuine sincerity that he spent it "fighting evil". So from my POV good intentions are not a valid excuse for supporting racketeering via congressional decree, particularly for a corporation one would expect has the expertise to build decision trees that would likely foresee the potential harm. If it wasn't on their decision tree before all the hoohaa, it is now.
Being generous I'd say GD displayed admirable self-skepticisim on the issue. Being cynical I'd say GD are like any other company, what they fear most is becoming a public pariah.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, doing it right is more important than doing it instantly. Also, Wikimedia's been a bit busy, what with the end of the fundraiser and another anti-SOPA protest that got just a bit of attention [wikimediafoundation.org].
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? I'm shocked to find myself saying this--I didn't even think it was possible--but...I think you just insulted Best Buy!
Re: (Score:2)
He may be waiting a while. "W" is towards the end of the alphabet.