reply at bottom. > From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:31:28 -0800 > To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: opensrs discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update [.com/.net & .name] - 13/02/03 > > Swerve wrote: > >> If the entity or person or content behind Art.Net or Art.info was >> interesting, then over time, Art.Net or Art.info would become a >> destination i would consider going to more than .com. >> In fact, i view .Net domains as "seriously" as i do .com's. I think .Net is >> cooler than .com. Of course, not everyone is into the cool factor. >> >> > Of course, .net was created for a clear and specific purpose, but it > was decided that the almighty buck was more important. > > .net was never intended to be used for systems that had user accounts -- > it was created for the routers and other infrastructure machines that > made up the net. > > UUnet was able to bully their way into uu.net, and a great idea was then > ignored. > > It is useful TO THE END USER for TLD's to have meaning -- for .info to > be publishers of information, for .com to be people who do commerical > business on the net, etc. They're not just random and equivalent suffixes.
I understand the history. Those 3 designations don't accurately represent those who's efforts don't easily fall into one of those categories. The work i do falls into artistic/activistic/commercial/and Net based activities. For me, .Net sums up more of what i do than .Com. Swerve > >
