Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

.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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

.museum TLDs are Live

Comments Filter:
  • .biz (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 01, 2001 @09:12AM (#2640873)
    What?

    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)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @09:16AM (#2640880) Homepage Journal
    How completly usless.

    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 :P)
    • I find it strange that index.museum doesn't even link to the museum sites. It just spits them out as text (sans hyperlink), forcing you to copy and paste them into the browser. Not a very big deal, but I'm wondering if this is a deliberate choice they made given the anti-hyperlinking decision in the 2600 case.

      If so... phooey.

      • by taion ( 304184 )
        The index.museum page links to each of the subcategories. Some of the links within the subcategories are active, some are not. It seems that the addresses without active links don't work anyway.

        It's likely that more and more of the links will be made to work as the addresses become functional.
    • by 8bit ( 127134 )
      not entirely useless, it'll make finding a museum's website a hell of a lot easier. Think about it, you want to go to such-and-such museum, but you don't know it's hours, and it's in a far away town (you want to visit in the middle of your road trip.) Just try such-and-such.museum or dig it up in the (hopefully to be improved,) index.museum.

      I just hope it doesn't become polluted with not really museums or have the domains sold. *shudder* sweat-stain-lookalike.elvis.museum
    • Come to New Zealand, where "Crown Research Institutes" have their own second level: .cri.nz

  • Isn't "museum" a little too hard for the average net user to spell correctly?
    This idea is only going to cause more problems...

    • Uh, no. Are these hard to spell?

      • slashdot
      • google
      • amazon
      • troll

      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!

      • 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!
      • It's not the spelling. Most people can spell museum. But ".museum" is a lot more cumbersome than your average TLD. .com, .net, .org...you see what I'm getting at?

        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?

      • by Anonymous Coward
        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.

        Reminds me of a quote from Voltaire:

        "The idiot contradicts himself in every sentence."
    • Instead you should be feeling brief twinge of nostalgia for the good old days when you actually had to type anonymous and you got flamed if you couldn't spell on usenet- way back when The Internet was an information highway.
  • Alternatively (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Saturday December 01, 2001 @09:24AM (#2640883) Homepage
    In Britain some museums (eg the Natural History Museum [nhm.ac.uk]) are counted as academic institutions so they appear in .ac.uk along with the universities. Strangely, the next-door Science Museum [sciencemuseum.org.uk] seems not to appreciate this and is redirecting from its old nmsi.ac.uk domain to something much less classy. Darn, that Slashdot goatse indicator is spoiling the surprise of clicking on the links to find out what the domains actually are :-(.
  • by cnvogel ( 3905 ) <chris.hedonism@cx> on Saturday December 01, 2001 @09:25AM (#2640885) Homepage
    Ignoring how stupid those new TLDs .museum
    and .aero really are... technically the MX is
    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
    • 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.

      • Well, the MX is running NT. I'm not surprised by any ns misconfiguration.
        • 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.

          • 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.

            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.
            • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      And take note that the system's already sorta being treated like the old one:

      carnegie.art.museum
      carnegie.museum.of.art.museum
      carnegiemuseum.art.museum
      carnegiemuseum.of.art.museum

      They need four different domains why?
  • by taffyd ( 316451 )
    How many different extensions are we going to have? How many people are going to actually use them?

    I think that the 'dot com' culture is too firmly entrenched. Businesses are always going to want to try and get a .com name. Forget about .biz, or .info, or .museum, or .rabid_attack_wombles.

    Taffyd.
    • We need to lobby ICANN for a "slashdot" extension!

      (example: www.cowboyneal.slashdot)
      • Would the main slashdot page be just http://slashdot, or http://home.slashdot, or http://main.slashdot, etc..

        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, .museum would have to signify what kind of museum, like art, and whatever else.

        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 .com supposed to be commercial buisness's only, I think I had heard that from someplace.
    • It will end when the top level root opens up to whatever names you want as long as you have enough money. IBM will register ibm., microsoft will have microsoft., etc. No worries about someone else taking your name but the heirarchy will be destroyed. Oh well.

    • How many different extensions are we going to have?


      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.

    • Hey, if you get them to create a .rabid_attack_wombles, I would buy several domains under it. Just imagine, and please go to:
      http://www.uberlame.rabid_attack_wombles/ hehe.
  • 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 :)

  • I live in St. Louis, Missouri and perused the index looking for local museums that were represented in the new TLD. The only one I found was magichouse.stlouis.museum. The Magic House (www.magichouse.com), to be fair, is a branch of the St. Louis Children's Museum. However, it is not quite what I would call a museum. Granted, it is a great place to take your kids on a rainy afternoon, or for a birthday party. But, there are many, many other museums in St. Louis that are more deserving -- particularly the St. Louis Art Museum in Forest Park, or the new Science Center (with the brand new planetarium), even the Bowling Hall of Fame deserves mentioning! These at least have something to do with the preservation of culture. Maybe I wouldn't be so disappointed if the Magic House didn't charge $5.50 per person (children under 2 free).
  • Try This (Score:3, Funny)

    by epsalon ( 518482 ) <slash@alon.wox.org> on Saturday December 01, 2001 @10:02AM (#2640938) Homepage Journal
    Well, the first test for a new TLD is usually this [sex.museum].
    Was I suprised when I got the reply "There is no sex.museum". Then where are all those banners pointing [sexmuseum.com] at?
  • by Jon Paxton ( 243810 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @10:08AM (#2640949) Homepage
    I'm still struggling to see why anyone thinks Museums are worthy of their own TLD. It makes sense to have TLDs for areas of the net/web that can be expected to contain massively varying content (commercial, organisations, countries etc) but museums??

    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 :)
    • by Lars T. ( 470328 ) <Lars@Traeger.googlemail@com> on Saturday December 01, 2001 @12:48PM (#2641204) Journal
      It makes as much sense as the other new TLDs do. Actually it makes more sense. I doubt you will find anything under e.g. ford.biz and ford.info but what you find now at ford.com - ford.museum OTOH will lead you to the old Fords. You are seeking for any science museum? Type in science.museum into the address bar - voila, all (registered) science museums. No chance to find something that is not a science museum, no need to call up a search engine.
    • I'm still struggling to see why anyone thinks Museums are worthy of their own TLD.

      In a world where 99% of .com domains aren't worthy of their domain? Complain about realproblems instead.

  • by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Saturday December 01, 2001 @10:10AM (#2640952) Homepage
    Someone should setup the dot.com.museum to display all the defunct dot bombs :)

    Knunov
  • Keep it that way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aozilla ( 133143 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @10:10AM (#2640954) Homepage

    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.

  • Given that TLDs were chosen for the convenience of identification, or so it seems, I still think that there should be a large number (maybe thousands) of TLDs available, if for no ither reason than to provide labels for languages other than English. (thinking of Chinese characters, etc)

    Other than that, the .museum TLD is a little long for convenience.

  • by bwulf ( 325 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @10:32AM (#2640982)
    .. is this [tld.called.museum].
    • This is funny... They have a corvet.museum but no jeep.museum or volkswagen.museum or even edsil.museum. Shouldn't we make them for everyone if we are going to make them for corvets?

      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 .museum.org and be done with it.
  • huh? (Score:2, Troll)

    by MrP- ( 45616 )
    How many museums are there on the net? wow a new TLD for 5 websites... whats next, .personalwebsitewithbaddesignandloudmidimusicinthe background TLDs?

    argh, and now I gotta modify all my perl scripts that check for valid emails which include a 2/3/and 4 char len TLDs

    argh
    • Re:huh? (Score:3, Funny)

      whats next, .personalwebsitewithbaddesignandloudmidimusicinthe background TLDs?
      Or we could just call it .aol for short.
  • Usefulness? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zach` ( 71927 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @11:35AM (#2641055)
    I think this TLD is alot more useful than many people say it is. .info, .aero, and .biz all seem useless and trivial, but it appears like .museum can actually provide a good, up-to-date index of museums. I was disappointed my town's museum isn't online yet (http://indianapolis.museum), but it'll be interesting to see it once it goes up.

    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.
  • TLD's that are only potentially usable by at most, 10,000 or so different sites. Of course, with their policies, it's probably closer to 500 total.
  • That.. (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 )
    is the stupidest new domain yet.
  • by crucini ( 98210 ) on Saturday December 01, 2001 @01:23PM (#2641273)
    It is another attempt to impose power structures from the "real world" onto the net. When this idea was first discussed, many asked if the led museum would be included. I'm unsurprised to see that it's not. This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand between the 'respectable' who deserve the title of museum (the narrow closed circuit of fundraising dinners and inherited wealth) and the unwashed masses who might try to extend the idea of museum to something internet-centric.

    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.
    • It is another attempt to impose power structures from the "real world" onto the net... This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand between the 'respectable' who deserve the title of museum (the narrow closed circuit of fundraising dinners and inherited wealth) and the unwashed masses who might try to extend the idea of museum to something internet-centric.

      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?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.


  • What, now sex.museum yet?

    The people in Amsterdam are going to be pissed off...
  • It would be nice if the root DNS servers maintained not only a list of existing entries pointing to sites (like, the regular yahoo.com), but also...Canonical names pointing to a site, generated based on information such as location, etc.

    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.

  • If other international organizations had petitioned for their own TLD.

    The International Council of Museums [icom.org] is the driving force behind the creation of the .museum domain. But what if other organizational bodies had been as clever as ICOM? What if there had been petitions for .aquarium, .zoo, .observatory, etc.?

    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. .aero would also have been rejected if there were applications for .bank, .law, .stock-market, etc., etc.
  • Who could forget such domains as
    • national.museum.of.women.in.the.arts.art.museum
    • nationalmuseumofwomeninthearts.art.museum
    • theclevelandmuseumofarts.art.museum (museum o farts?)
    • ici.exhibitions.nyc.contemporary.art.museum
    • (my favorite) fundacio.pilar.i.joan.miro.mallorca.art.museum
    All are registered, but none are used. Thank you, InterNIC.
  • Most of the problems on the Internet are due to trademark and domain name conflicts.

    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'.
  • The whole history of computers and technology in general has concentrated around making a more efficient and logical system. Why then .museum? At least IMHO, I think a .ref (for "reference") TLD would have been far more useful. Museum sites, as well as libraries, search engines, research facilities, and all sorts of other topics could be covered under it. As for the rest of them, ICAAN seriously needs to rethink how their decisions are going to affect the future of the Internet.
  • Unlike .info and .biz. I've tried hundreds of company names with .biz on the end. None work. Where's microsoft.biz? Where's insurance.info?

    No-one's using .biz or .info. Useless. But at least this .museum TLD is being used.
  • I like the idea of having more TLDs but they have to be specific. .biz sucks because it is just a try-hard .com. No one is going to risk having only a .biz and not a .com so what's the point?

    .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

  • is .movie

    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 .movie to fix all that.
  • And the question is...

    "What was the most useless development in computers in the year 2000?"

    Correct!

    I'd like "Stupid Shit" for $500, Alex.
  • 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!

    • No, they're actually not taking payments for .museum domains yet until the experimental phase is over, and at that point, the domains will be delegated just like in any other TLD, allowing any sort of DNS records to be used.

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.

Working...