Talk:OpenDNS

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

davidu (talk · contribs) / Ulevitch, David This user has contributed to the article.

Criticism

perhaps some discussion of criticism like the questionable benfits it offers over isp dns server in speed. once you cache the dns name - ip , its local and no need to contant dns server. -- 69.113.7.9 16:16, September 9, 2006 (UTC)

Since my ISP's DNS is busted 3/4 of the time, I think the criticism is droll. Ah, well... -- ke4roh 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that The Criticism section needs some serious reworking, and some of the article reeks of POV and uncited sources. especially this line... "According to OpenDNS, additional services that run on top of its enhanced DNS service will be provided, and some of them may cost money. These announcements have caused some users who are suspicious of OpenDNS's agenda to drop the service."

OpenDNS mentions in BOLD print that they will NOT charge for DNS services, but some "premium" options (like those for businesses and such) would pay a nominal fee.

As for the Criticism section, OpenDNS is no longer centralised, and now works as a normal DNS would. Paul Vixie's criticisms brought OpenDNS to redesign. Source? http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2006-July/000816.html "typosquatting" can now be eliminated by setting up an account. Just clearing this up... 24.196.2.149 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can someone please remove this false criticism of OpenDNS? (So I don't self-edit) There are certainly some folks out there who can find things they don't like about us, but this isn't one of them and it doesn't hold water. --Davidu 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed the Criticism section - the only thing it contained was a criticism that DNS has redundancy, but OpenDNS does not; since OpenDNS is in fact redundant, the criticism was false. The Criticism section should be re-added at such a point as meaningful points can be added to it. Dweekly 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should put it back. I mean, they are blocking perfectly fine and decent websites, like beautifulagony.com (it's NOT porn, nor spam, nor do they involve in phising) 195.64.95.116 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hacker reference?

in the article it mentions Mr. Ulevitch as being a "hacker", is there a source for this? Looking at the linked biographical page for him, shows no mention of him being a "hacker" of any sort. --adamh 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it might be saying "hacker" as in the type of person who "hacks" systems to improve them. Much like one "hacking" an xbox360 to run linux on it isn't harmful to anyone. The term "hacker" itself doesn't always have negative connotations. -- Tawker 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not a hacker in the malicious sense. I've never been arrested for or convicted of a computer crime. (or any crime for that matter) --Davidu 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDNS Guide

I just register with OpenDNS. I can confirm that "OpenDNS Guide" (their SiteFinder) service is not a "purely opt-in" service. It is turned on by default and I have yet figure out how to opt out. --Voidvector 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just register with OpenDNS -- Yeah, that pretty much means it's 100% opt-in. Even as a user you can still use us and turn things on or off. It doesn't get more opt-in than that. --Davidu 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant there's one step more opt-in than that: that if you register, it's disabled by default. -- — Northgrove 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opendns ads?

I think the article should mention that when there is a problem resolving a hostname with opendns, it shows you a yahoo search page with ads from yahoo, and originally they didn't even tell you that their was a dns error on that page, until I brought this to their attention. Also why is this article not being deleted when 4.2.2.2 was deleted? Level 3, formerly GTE, allows public access to these dns servers. 4.2.2.1-8 all respond to dns requests except for 4.2.2.6 and .7. Family Guy Guy 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy against 4.2.2.2/4.2.2.1

Why was the 4.2.2.2 article deleted but this one wasn't? A simple ping test proves that 4.2.2.2 is superior:

Ping statistics for 208.67.222.222:

   Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),