…

Finora texas holdem on line texas holdem roma…

I may not say this service is suitable for all …. But Home users works !!!

This service is all fine and all that but… all queries are paassing thru this server, that means that this business (it is after all here to make money and give a return to investors) is in a great position to find out EVERYTHING you do on the net: where you go, what you like, when you surf, what you are looking for, etc… a perfect model to, in turn, collect demagraphics and then target adverts… or to target anything they want. I’m not very omfortable with that.

According to Postini, better than 85% of all email traffic is now spam. One of two things is going to happen here. Either internet users are going to adopt a new form of communication (and it isn’t IM, as spam……

Namaste. This is IT Blogwatch, in which a very boring — yet utterly vital — part of the Internet infrastructure gets a kick in the pants. Not to mention The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs, Aged 51 1/2……

Personally, I don’t need to use a third party DNS since my ISP provided me with 2 rock solid and fast ones.

I’ve got a MAC and two PC’s on my home LAN. On the MAC (my main machine) I have set up aliases for the other two machines and the router (similar to the way XP’s hosts file works). This means for example I can type ‘router’ into the Firefox address bar instead of ‘192.168.2.1′ to get to the router configuration. I can also remote desktop to the other machines by specifying their aliases instead of IP addresses.

With OpenDNS set up in my router this no longer works. My suspicion is that OS/X queries the DNS service before looking in its own table or machine aliases. So, because OpenDNS returns a result for ‘router’, I get the OpenDNS page of adverts instead of my 192.168.2.1 router.

I wonder if WinXP hosts file works the same way but I don’t have time to test it. Too bad.

Unless they do something monumentally stupid (Sorry David, but it’s almost expected in today’s business model) I’ll continue to use OpenDNS. Thanks for creating this, and I wish you continued success in it.

While I don’t care if it takes .01s or .005s to lookup a name, it would be awesome to cut my # of hops down from 15 to 7 between me and a server I’m gaming on!

Just my 2 cents.

1) Since my ISP’s DNS crashes ALL OF THE TIME, it’s nice to have another address that I can use why they try to figure out WTF. (Charter ay my home and BellSouth at my office.)

2) I don’t really see a big performance improvement and have noticed that the ping times for the OpenDNS servers are actually longer than my local ISPs. (I have not researched lookup times.) OTOH, it’s isn’t any worse.

So, if it weren’t for item #1, I wouldn’t bother. Having a backup choice for DNS lookup is nice.

Could somebody do some REAL benchmarks with different ISPs to see if there is an actual improvement?

1. Verisign being the traffic router for every single web address ending with .com or .net, was in a position to exploit ***ALL*** traffic to non-registered domains (often a result of mispelling popular ones) via pay-per-click. There was no way to opt out, as long as the service was online. With OpenDNS, there is an opt-in system in place. Big difference.

2. According to Comment #1:
“It should be mentioned that you only see advertisements when you really, really mangle a URL — as they say on their site, typing something like craigslist.og will automatically take you to craigslist.org”

This was not the case with SiteFinder. Every single hit to a non-registered domain was redirected to Verisign’s PPC-infested pages, even if the mispelling was on account of one incorrect character. OpenDNS is obviously proceeding more cautiously (as well they might).

3. SiteFinder disrupted the working of Whois programs, because every availability request for an unregistered domain actually resolved (to verisign’s servers), so whois clients found it difficult to figure out whether the domain in question was actually registered, or was available for registration. I guess this wont be a problem with OpenDNS, because they’re not operating the registry, only probably adding a proxy layer in between.

In any case, I think the business model of pay-per-click can net in big $$$
especially if ISPs make use of their services. Imagine a 6 year old kid typing in gogle.com and being taken to OpenDNS’s PPC pages. Of course as comment #1 notes, this isnt happening now, but who knows what’s going to happen after an year or so….

[dready.org] OpenDNS - Technical Review …

It’s also hard to qualify, but I believe that my page surfing speed has increased, especially regarding pages that I visit frequently - such as Google and GMail. The speed increase isn’t huge by any means (I already have a fairly fast connection), but anything that gets me to my email faster for free, and does it as unobtrusively as OpenDNS, deserves a nod in my book.

Thanks!

Riley

That may be true, but upon attempting to reach the Microsoft Vista website one might try http://vista.microsoft.com, a perfectly reasonable guess. OpenDNS recognises this site doesn’t exist and provides a list of alternatives.

The top alternative is the correct one: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/

For this sort of functionality alone it is worth it, and more than allowable for them to make some sort of advertising revenue.

In countries were bandwidth is very expensive (Africa, for example, has a cost 90 times higher than the North American cost) ISPs tend to _all_ use transparent proxies. In that case using OpenDNS on client machines or even local DNS servers does not work as all http requests (and their DNS lookups) are being handled by the ISP’s transparent proxy server, not your own server.

The only solution I can think of in that case is for the ISP’s transparent proxy to use OpenDNS. I would love to see some testimonials from ISPs that use OpenDNS on their transparent proxy servers.

So many commenters claiming to have ‘used it for weeks’ and ‘omg it so fast’.

Mike called me at like 1am last night to talk about this post. He knows this article was pretty fucked up. Mike discusses it briefly here: http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=238 I encourage people to read the crunchNotes post. I wish it were linked to the bottom of this post along with the rest of the positive reviews.

I think it goes without saying that we all would like Mike to go back to writing the majority of the posts. Even a negative review from Mike would be well researched and accurate and welcomed by me. This wasn’t that though, I was never contacted and real DNS experts (Mike, you don’t count) were never consulted. I’m confident next time they will be.

As always, I welcome the feedback though, just not sure where it is in this article.

David