Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alternative DNS services"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎OpenNIC additions: I'm done with this wiki. o-o)
Line 35: Line 35:
--[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
--[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
::: I'm done with this wiki. over and out.  [[User:UBF6|UBF6]] ([[User talk:UBF6|talk]]) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:53, 20 November 2018

Future of the page

Another alternative could be to refocus this page on Arch solutions and non-commercial DNS. -- Kewl (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What are "Arch solutions"? --Larivact (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an open question, we may present ways to select the most secure and fastest DNS for a given location using Arch tools for example. -- Kewl (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Such information could be incorporated into Domain name resolution. --Larivact (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think so, then some information of the DNS Alternative page could be used in this new section in Domain name resolution. --Kewl (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
wikipedia clearly is an unreliable source. The ArchWiki can do better than that! Keep the article! Once a real good ARCH package for OpenNIC is shipped with major distros, OpenNIC will become more important! UBF6 (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The takeaway of this short talk is that it is rather a candidate for merging than for archiving. -- Kewl (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree because the only things I see worth merging are the opennic-up App template and the Wikipedia link in See also. --Larivact (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The ArchWiki is not more reliable than Wikipedia. If anything it's the opposite because Wikipedia requires sources, which we do not do at all. --Larivact (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

RINA - alt-root / multiple roots ? for real ?

Why do they have no actual working sites on their alt-root ?

“ICANN, with its self-proclaimed monopoly, says that there is only one root – Verisign – which operates under contract with the US Department of Commerce (DOC). Changing this root must be approved, first by ICANN, and then DOC. While in actuality, there are many roots created by other organisations, to allow access to sites which, for various reasons, have TLD (Top Level Domains) that do not exist in the ICANN root servers,” Pouzin told Silicon.fr.

Is this for real ? --UBF6 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I neither know what RINA is nor what you are quoting but I doubt it has anything to do with Arch Linux. --Larivact (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

OpenNIC additions

I rolled back your 33 revisions because this page is marked for archiving and your additions have nothing to do with Arch Linux.

--Larivact (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm done with this wiki. over and out. UBF6 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)