Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Possibly. But say I'm starting a video-sharing website - I'm at a big competitive disadvantage when my customers need to type and remember an extra ___domain-name level compared to my competitors (who own '.video', '.movie', '.youtube', etc. while i might own '.bobsvideo.fail').



Except that, as discussed above, "youtube" by itself is not a valid host name. It would have to be "mysite.youtube"

Still easier than you having "mysite.bobsvideo.fail" I agree, but frankly most people don't even find sites via the ___domain name. They'll google "Bobs Video" and see what comes up.


Wrong. "youtube." (or "youtube") IS a valid host name. "to." is an example, it was a URL shortening service, but it's down now.


why wouldn't "youtube" be valid hostname?


Same reason that "com" and "net" aren't. Root nodes aren't, from my understanding, valid names for machines.

Edit: Seems I'm wrong. See discussion downthread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105707




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: