Google Brings Its '.new' Domains To the Rest of the Web (techcrunch.com) 39
A year ago, Google rolled out ".new" links that worked like shortcuts to instantly create new Google documents. For example, you could type "doc.new" (without the quotes) to create a new Google Doc or "sheet.new" to create a new spreadsheet. Today, Google announced it's bringing the .new shortcuts to the rest of the web. From a report: Now, any company or organization can register their own .new domain to generate a .new shortcut that works with their own web app. Several have already done so, including Microsoft, which now has "word.new" to start a new word document, or Spotify, which has "playlist.new" to start adding songs to a new playlist on its streaming app. The domains are designed to get users straight to the action. That is, instead of having to visit a service, sign in, then find the right menu or function, they could just start creating. However, some of today's new domains aren't quite as seamless as Google's own.
president.new (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Nah (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HINT: Register xls.new (Score:4, Funny)
Hah! I'll register exe.new! (Score:2)
And Chrome.new and Chrome.exe.new and ntoskrnl.exe.new and vmlinux.new!
And shell.new, so you can have a proper OS where crap like this is not supported wherever you are. escape-hatch.new and help-everyone-is-literally-insane.new will redirect to it.
keywords.old (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes it even worse. (Score:2)
Something OP definitely already implied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As google continues... (Score:2)
How about no (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop fucking with my greed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never liked that TLD's even existed. I honestly do not see the point other than it being a money making scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because until very recently, it was not a browser concern. The browser merely passed the hostname to the OS and the OS did the name resolution. It would be up to the OS resolver to block the new TLDs
Re: (Score:1)
No, because until very recently, it was not a browser concern.
DNS over HTTPS to the rescue!
Re: (Score:3)
Have any major browsers just said no to this BS and kept only to the original tlds?
1) DNS is responsible for resolving gTLDs, not your browser, so why would we want browsers refusing to browse to valid—if silly—domains?
2) Define "original tlds". Do you mean the original gTLDs [ietf.org] (i.e. only .gov, .edu, .com, .mil, and .org), without newer gTLDs like .info, .biz, .mail, or other such nonsense? What about ccTLDs? The original ones were .us, .uk, and .il for the US, UK, and Israel. Every other nation was added later.
3) If your goal is to eliminate silly domain name usage, what about
Re: How about no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's been a long time since I've used IE/Edge. I recently helped someone with a hardware problem on their computer, and fired up Edge. When it displayed the Homepage, I noticed that the URL/Search bar was blank. I had no idea Edge doesn't even display the URL at all when you're looking at the startup or home pages. Will typing "new" simply take me to a Bing search for "new?"
Bonus: while typing this reply, Firefox popped up an update notification, and interpreted my typing as permission to update (Firefo
slashdot.new (Score:2)
where the articles are not advertisements, the editing process works and all the comments will be insightful and respectful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm officially old (Score:5, Insightful)
Who asked for this?
The drive to make everything a web app is going to end up biting us in the rear and hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Who asked for this?
Exactly. Though, to be fair, this is also the first thing I say to myself whenever I read the new "features" list for every Chrome and Firefox release ...
Re: (Score:2)
The drive to make everything a web app is going to end up biting us in the rear and hard.
Who is us? Certainly not the millions of people around the world who never wanted to install an office suite on their computer for the once in a blue moon they have to open a word document.
Has potential (Score:3)
blowjob.new
I think this is something we can all agree on!
Re: (Score:2)
Or suck.it ;)
My next domain: word.new.Firefox.Linux.new (Score:2)
In the browser (a VM) it will run a VM with Linux, to run Firefox (another VM), to launch Word, so you can write a document like the WhatWG neonuthouse intended!
Really, every time you think that crowd cannot come up with something more insane, they blow your mind.
I hope they've thought this through ... (Score:2)
For example, you could type "doc.new" (without the quotes) to create a new Google Doc or "sheet.new" to create a new spreadsheet.
Yet Another Malicious TLD (Score:2)
Blocked in the MTA for inbound and outbound connections.
Blocked in DNS all new TLD lookups return NXDOMAIN
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's the first thing I thought. Yet another TLD to block wholesale from my incoming SMTP. [clickety-clickety] new REJECT :wq Done.
I will say one thing about these stupid new TLDs, I get so much less less spam since spammers these days don't know how to forge headers, and simply register a domain from these TLDs that no sane person would use for ordinary e-mail. Annoyingly, I did have to add three whitelist exceptions, one for .us and two for .info .
No, keep local and cloud separate (Score:2)
I'm very much opposed to the current trend in "hidden" cloud computing where documents may be on your compute, the cloud or both. Having what looks sort of like an internet address typed into the address bar actually accessing a local(?) program to create a local (?) document seems bad for several reasons.
Security: I want to know what is on my local machine and what is being sent outside. I don't want things that look like internet addresses running software on my machine unless is well sandboxed. If an
all this new (and old) TLD are bullshit (Score:2)
newer.than.new (Score:1)
Comment (Score:2)
Other ideas:
who-k.new
york.new