.museum TLDs are Live 124
GuNgA-DiN writes: "Several sites in .museum have now gone live: you can check out met.art.museum, stockholm.music.museum, and minnesota.science.museum, for instance. You can navigate the hierarchical structure of this TLD via index.museum, or go directly to an index page for a particular second level domain by going to that domain, e.g., art.museum.
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has. Thus, .museum addresses can currently only be used as additional addresses for sites that already have some other domain. MX records haven't yet been set up, so email to these domains won't yet work."
.biz (Score:3, Offtopic)
When did this happen? I didn't get thousands of spam mails about it.
I guess I'll have to get on the ball and register my .biz domains now before it's too late!
Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, not entirely usless, although the choice of museum's as a class of institutions deserving a tld seems kind of random.
Otoh, I really like their index system, rather then having 2nd level domains up for grabs, although they seem to be allowing just about every catigory you could think of. I mean 'airguard.museum'? sci.museum and science.museum? and why does the louvre get a 2nd level? (those stuck up french
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Informative)
Since when? Do you have an RFC cite for this? DNS is quite unopinionated on the subject - host names and domain names are treated the same.
I remember back in '93 hmc.edu used this technique, but not for a web site. It had an MX record, but some broken mail clients of the day did not consult MX records, so it also had an A record for the appropriate IP address.
I believe this was a widespread technique to work around these broken mail clients long before the web became popular, although I don't have any evidence to back this up.
Not even links (Score:1)
If so... phooey.
Links (Score:1)
It's likely that more and more of the links will be made to work as the addresses become functional.
Re:Wow (Score:1)
I just hope it doesn't become polluted with not really museums or have the domains sold. *shudder* sweat-stain-lookalike.elvis.museum
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Come to New Zealand, where "Crown Research Institutes" have their own second level: .cri.nz
damn now we need to spell (Score:2, Funny)
This idea is only going to cause more problems...
Re:damn now we need to spell (Score:2, Flamebait)
Uh, no. Are these hard to spell?
You may hold the belief that the average Net user is a drooling idiot, but I can't share that view. Might such a user be ill-informed on issues related privacy online? Sure. Might s/he be ill-informed on kernel hackery? Sure. Does this make you a better person? No.
I somehow doubt the idea that Joe User can't spell the word "museum." I'm fairly sure your post was meant to be funny, and I apologize if I seem a bit harsh here. It's just that so many people here have a nasty tendency to look down upon anyone who (a) doesn't use Linux/BSD/OS X/whatever-cool-OS, (b) doesn't code, or (c) isn't a card-carrying GPL advocate. All three points actually apply to me, but I don't go around screaming it from the belfries.
More than anything, I've gotta wonder what kind of crack a moderator would have to be smoking to give that an "insightful +1" moderation...
Web hosting for geeks, by geeks. Starting at $4 USD per month. [trilucid.com]
If you're gonna email, use the public key!
Re:damn now we need to spell (Score:1)
Minor clarification: meant to say that the *converse* of all three points applies to me (as in, I use Linux, code frantically, and use the GPL).
Thanks
Web hosting for geeks, by geeks. Starting at $4 USD per month. [trilucid.com]
If you're gonna email, use the public key!
Re:damn now we need to spell (Score:2)
Why not .mus? I thought the idea was that it was a small suffix...a TLD that takes up more space than the domain is kinda stupid surely?
Re:damn now we need to spell (Score:1)
Reminds me of a quote from Voltaire:
"The idiot contradicts himself in every sentence."
Re:damn now we need to spell (Score:1)
Alternatively (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alternatively (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alternatively (Score:1)
Re:.mus (Score:2, Insightful)
Or even (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Or even (Score:1, Funny)
http://slashdot.org/lick.my.pussy
Is that worthy a Funny?
How about a
http://slashdot.org/suck.my.pole
Is that Funny too?
Come on moderators. Fuck lick screw arse cunt prick dick cock tunnel-of-fudge isn't fun in any language. They are bad taste, and suck...
Re:.mus (Score:2)
Re:.mus (Score:1)
This might come as a shock to you, but there really is no point in furthering the "cryptification" of words just because at some point in the distant past, there were systems which apparently had a limitation of three characters at the end of something.
Ppl prf rdn ful wds not abr chs rnd.
Do you also have all your HTML pages end in .htm? How MICROS~1.
Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs... (Score:5, Informative)
and
already there:
obelix:chris$ host -t mx met.art.museum
met.art.museum is a nickname for www.metmuseum.org
www.metmuseum.org is a nickname for metmuseum.org
metmuseum.org mail is handled (pri=10) by proxy00.metmuseum.org
But of course no one told the mailserver...
220 mail00.metmuseum.org InterScan VirusWall NT ESMTP 3.5 (build 1294) ready at Sat, 01 Dec 2001 08:20:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
MAIL FROM:
250 : Sender Ok
RCPT TO:
550 Relaying denied to met.art.museum
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:3, Informative)
You don't follow a CNAME to a CNAME and then follow the MX. That's not how it works.
Of course, technically, you're not supposed to have a CNAME to a CNAME in the first place.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:1)
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:2)
The MX is not what's misconfigured, the CNAME is (with the technicality that CNAMEs shouldn't point to CNAMEs, one that is very commonly ignored). As for the MX, I bet mail to that stupid .museum address is supposed to bounce.
Why do you think running NT makes it more likely to misconfigure? I would bet it makes it less likely, since Microsoft makes it much simpler to configure.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:1)
The issue is that because people THINK it's easy, they put any old dunce on the job and don't care. Well, the guy ends up not knowing anything about stuff like CNAMES and MXs, and software can only be just so intelligent. As a result, you end up with some terribly sloppy administration.
With UNIX and friends, however, you have the OPPOSITE perception. One that it is hard and takes someone who really knows what he's the doing. The truth, of course, is that system administration is a skilled trade like any other - it requires a great deal of expertise to be performed effectively. This is not burger-flipping, this is telecommunications infrastructure maintenance. As a result of the perception, effort is put towards finding a competent sysadmin because they know that an MCSE just isn't going to cut it.
And that is why I expect most Windows systems to be poorly adminned.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:1)
There is a general perception that MS products are easy to configure. They aren't, they require no less expertise to operate properly than UNIX, probably more.
Having used Microsoft's DNS server, and having had semi-technical friends use Microsoft's DNS server, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. MS products, in general, are easier to configure.
I'm not saying that Microsoft's DNS server can be used without a basic knowledge of DNS, but once you have that basic knowledge, choosing from "A, CNAME, MX, etc." is much easier (less chance for error) than typing it in. Knowing that MX takes an extra argument because the GUI will not let you not set it (in fact, I believe it defaults to the most common value) is much simpler than having to remember to type it in. I know a hell of a lot about DNS, but I can't tell you how many times I've forgotten to enter the MX priority. And Bind will just silently fail, maybe putting something in your syslog, and you'll wonder 2 days later why you haven't been getting any spam.
Sure, there are alternatives to bind and bind configure files, but they generally involve installation of new software, which in and of itself is more difficult than with Windows.
With UNIX and friends, however, you have the OPPOSITE perception. One that it is hard and takes someone who really knows what he's the doing. The truth, of course, is that system administration is a skilled trade like any other - it requires a great deal of expertise to be performed effectively. This is not burger-flipping, this is telecommunications infrastructure maintenance. As a result of the perception, effort is put towards finding a competent sysadmin because they know that an MCSE just isn't going to cut it.
You are certainly right that a Microsoft admin still needs to know what s/he's doing, but I personally have never met a manager that didn't know that. In fact, at my last job the NT admin was probably the smartest and most capable person on the team (in a mixed NT/unix environment). Of course, he wasn't an MCSE, and I'm sure that he is the exception, as opposed to the rule, but I really don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:2)
Purpose of CNAME records (Score:1)
Funny, that, considering CNAME means 'Canonical Name'
The difference is that CNAME maps from non-canonical names to canonical names. Correct?
CNAMEs should not point to other CNAMEs [jhsoft.com] (only to A records) to avoid the possibility of infinite recursion.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:2)
Just pointing out that it's confusing for some.
Re:Stupid domains, incorrect statement about MXs.. (Score:1, Interesting)
carnegie.art.museum
carnegie.museum.of.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.of.art.museum
They need four different domains why?
When does it end...? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that the 'dot com' culture is too firmly entrenched. Businesses are always going to want to try and get a
Taffyd.
Re:When does it end...? (Score:1)
(example: www.cowboyneal.slashdot)
Re:When does it end...? (Score:1)
I thought these new TLD's are pretty neat, but when you get what the other poster had up there, 4 domains that point to the Carnegie Museum of Art, it seems to me that they didn't organize this well.
Here is what I mean:
carnegie.art.museum
carnegie.museum.of.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.art.museum
carnegiemuseum.of.art.museum
Now, it seems to me that it would have been more logical to say,
So, now we can have:
.art.museum
.maritime.museum
.ushistory.museum
.euhistory.museum
You could then type out: "http://art.museum" and get a listing of all the museums of art online. And similarly, you could type out "http://maritime.museum" and get a listing of all those. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to find museums that way online. I guess some museums have multiple sections, you could just list them under multiple domains I guess..
Well anyway, its pretty cool i guess, but I seems its going to end up how our domains are now. Wasn't
Re:When does it end...? (Score:1)
Re:When does it end...? (Score:1)
Answer: exactly zero. There's no such thing as an "extension" in DNS. Thinking that domains consist of "domains" and "extensions" is what got us silliness like dot-biz and domain squatters in the first place.
Re:When does it end...? (Score:1)
http://www.uberlame.rabid_attack_wombles/ hehe.
Quite nice (Score:2)
Nice domain! :) I'd love to have one. What is the criteria of becoming a museum ;)
Well, back to reality. Every country has a lot of museums. Large cities may have several dousins. But they don't get sorted after country, and that may be troublesome.
On the other hand, stockholm.music.museum. They categorize the museums in which fields they belong to. And that makes it quite clear. You know you're at the right place when you are at einstein.technical.museum, rather when you're at theeinsteinmuseum.com.
My humble opinion at least :)
Magic House, but no Bowling (Score:1)
Try This (Score:3, Funny)
Was I suprised when I got the reply "There is no sex.museum". Then where are all those banners pointing [sexmuseum.com] at?
Re:Try This (Score:5, Funny)
Where is the museum? [fucking.museum] (click for reply)
Even better (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Try This (Score:1)
We have a sex museum downtown Copenhagen and it's not even a joke.
(and yes they have screens showing clips of pornos from the movies was invented to now. At least I think they had that at a time)
Re:Try This (Score:1)
What were they thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times have you actually wanted to find the website for a museum and not been able to do so using any search engine [google.com]?
The only people NOT capable of using a search engine to find a website aren't going to think "oh, maybe i should try http://index.museum/". I wonder if there is really an alteria motive by the companies who are bidding to run these new TLDs as some way of getting a foot in the door and controlling a bit of the web... But maybe I'm just cynical
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:1)
In a world where 99% of .com domains aren't worthy of their domain? Complain about realproblems instead.
Here's an idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Knunov
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Keep it that way (Score:4, Interesting)
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has.
Why should a .museum TLD have an A record anyway? I can see a CNAME, pointing to the real machine name, and I can see an MX, also pointing to the real machine name, but the whole concept of .museum is a web thing. What we need is a WWW record, for now CNAME will have to do.
TLD Madness (Score:2)
Other than that, the .museum TLD is a little long for convenience.
All I can say.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All I can say.. (Score:1)
Then again, what if corvet isn't that car made by chevy, but corvet class battle ships?
Eh... i get off my soap box and wonder why we just cannot give these people a
Re:All I can say.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You need an address so you can send the user a PW (Score:1)
(but why are you collecting people's email addresses in the first place??)
Before you ass-u-me grandparent collects e-mail addresses to build a spam list, realize that many web services (such as Slashcode-based sites) get users' addresses so the service can send the user an initial password. It's faster to check "does this look like a valid hostname?" than to MX lookup the address the user provided.
Rumpelstiltskin (Score:1)
- connect to the returned mail servers (do the mail servers actually exist)
Two problems:- try validating the address with the mail server (is not always correct)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Usefulness? (Score:3, Interesting)
index.museum looks like it's been implemented pretty well so far, and it'd be even better with a search feature. I hope they continue to improve on it.
You just gotta love... (Score:1)
There are already smaller domains than .museum ! (Score:1)
.mil seems to be pretty small, too.
That.. (Score:1, Flamebait)
This makes me angry (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is implemented only as CNAMEs emphasizes that ICANN has polluted the top level namespace with sheer gimmickry. These bastions of privilege have no intention of surrendering their existing domains.
Instead of an orderly development of tld space based on compact representation for the most common areas, we are getting an expression of privilege and influence extended into the net. The nobles are riding across the peasant's fields, hunting the fox.
The real tragedy is that we have been unable to shake off ICANN. This utterly corrupt, elitist and short-sighted clique has no feeling for the natural flavor and development of the net. And yet the only thing which empowers ICANN is that we use the root name servers they recommend. Every attempt to build an alternate root seems to have fizzled, because the center of gravity remains with ICANN.
Until we find a way to migrate from ICANN-dependence, we can expect a continuing series of insults and abuses from them.
Re:This makes me angry (Score:1)
In a sense, you've summed up both the great strength and weakness of this naming convention in a nutshell. When I first saw this announcement, like many other non-technical "end-users", I thought it was great. It seemed an easy, logical method of finding another category of something I could be interested in -- I particularly liked the "second-level" convention with subdivisions of museum types (e.g.: "art", "science", etc.).
But, then I started thinking about the odd and unusual -- such as the LED museum, or the (now-defunct) MIT hack museum, which don't have the common-culture credibility or an easy-to-pigeonhole classification -- and realized that this method would also leave many institutions out in the cold.
A trade-off, certainly, since your average-Joe user won't be thinking about LEDs or MIT pranks when s/he thinks of "Museum" with a capital "M", but a bittersweet one, nonetheless. This will certainly decrease the level of frustration for your average user looking for the typical establishment museums...and, really, that's a large part of what drives the 'net these days. But I can't help but wondering -- was there a better naming convention that would have been logical and easy to use, but more inclusive?
Perhaps adding a few more second-level domains like "xxxx.odd.museum" and "xxxx.misc.museum" and "xxxx.planetarium.museum"("xxxx.astro.museum")?
Sorta seems like the ".edu" debate -- sure, its easy to say "assign them to institutions of 'higher learning'" off the top of your head, but...who draws the line on what is and is not qualified?
Re:This makes me angry (Score:1, Informative)
The real tragedy is that we have been unable to shake off ICANN.
People who actually acare about the problem (and everyone who uses systems set up by such people) have shaken off ICANN. Point yourself at one of the other roots. Just do it. ICANN's existence is 100% defacto. Again: just do it.
sex.museum (Score:1)
What, now sex.museum yet?
The people in Amsterdam are going to be pissed off...
Blind Web Navigation (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be spiffy if I could find the nearest Radio Shack around (if, say, I were new to my area) with a system like this. I could try radioshack.dallas.tx.us.com, and instantly see a site on the locations in Dallas. But--What if there were no Radio Shacks in Dallas? Ya don't suppose I could hit radioshack.index.tx.us.com, and I'd instantly see an index of all Radio Shack locations in Texas?
Sorry. Just more speculation from yet another convenience nut.
Re:Blind Web Navigation (Score:2)
ICANN Would have likely rejected this..... (Score:1)
The International Council of Museums [icom.org] is the driving force behind the creation of the
If a lot of petitions for TLDs were submitted to partition the Internet into private or semi-private areas for "worthy" institutions and/or causes, I think then that the ICANN would have realized how foolish it would be to create separate and unequal TLDs.
ICANN only approved this because only a handfull of comunities asked for private space.
Such memorable domain names! (Score:2)
.reg TLD is more urgently needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Not surprising really - as virtually every word is trademarked - Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu - MOST many times over.
I have been communicating with US and UK authorities about this.
Would it surprise you to learn, that they know the solution to these difficulties - yet hide it from you?
Like I say, MOST trademarks share the same words or initials with many others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks in the USA alone.
Despite this, each domain could be made unique and totally distinctive - as trademarks are required to be, by trademark law.
When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they either are devoid of intelligence or corrupt.
Given their response - I have come to logical conclusion that they are corrupt.
Perhaps you would be interested to hear, that the solution was ratified by honest lawyers and a panellist judge of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
I have WIPO.org.uk to broadcast the facts. As the United Nations WIPO.org take away similar named domains, do you not find that even slightly newsworthy?
I also have SWIPO.org [swipo.org] - redirected to UN WIPO.org, to show disdain.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see the simple solution, to avoid 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and stop people 'passing off'.
Re:.reg TLD is more urgently needed (Score:1)
Why is this marked off topic? This is very relevant to .museum and the future of TLD's. Letting corporations restrict free speech via trademark rules limits all of us. (E.g. VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworkAndLessM oneyOnLawyers.com [verizonsho...awyers.com], and see Wired article [wired.com] for more info.)
Moderators mark this insightful (even if it isn't concise).
Thank you - you are also insightful (Score:2)
Trademarks are to identify source - not claim world rights to the word.
That is why they do not want
Thank you also - EOM (Score:2)
More practical domains (Score:1)
At least these are being used (Score:1)
No-one's using
more TLDs are good! (Score:1)
.museum OTOH is good, especially the index. These specific TLDs are a great way to keep out the rifraf, by that I mean porn sites etc. Someone was complaining that their favorite museum isn't included. I see this as a misuse of power. If it fits in the category of museum then it should be in there, even if it is under internet.museum or computers.museum (alternative.museum ?).
These specific TLDs are sort of like a web within a web. They should have a good index.tld to keep things consistent and they should use categories within them as well (science.museum) if useful. They are like an umbrella web site or like Google's directory.
I have no problems at all with them being CNAMEs to start off with but, as it becomes wider known, the old address should become the CNAME for a while then disappear. A site could belong to more than one specific TLD (one A and the rest CNAME) eg. smithsonian.museum and smithsonian.ref (reference).
These could make the web much easier to traverse.
Summary: museum = good, biz = bad
One more TLD we need... (Score:2)
Every new movie has a website, and most have to tack "movie" on the end of the title. (ie: behindenemylinesmovie.com - I think that's an example) We just need
Re:One more TLD we need... (Score:2)
Fast Forward: Jeopardy in 2003 (Score:2)
"What was the most useless development in computers in the year 2000?"
Correct!
I'd like "Stupid Shit" for $500, Alex.
Re:Fast Forward: Jeopardy in 2003 (Score:1)
Define "live"? (Score:1)
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has.
Thus, .museum addresses can currently only be used as additional addresses for sites that already have some other domain. MX records haven't yet been set up, so email to these domains won't yet work
So when you say ".museum TLDs are live", what exactly does that mean? "Live, unless you want to do anything other than point a CNAME at your website"? That doesn't seem very "live" to me. Another half-arsed botched TLD job. *sigh*.
I bet the .museum payment system is "live".
Stuii!
Re:Define "live"? (Score:1)