[CS-FSLUG] Decentralized DNS

[David McGlone]

On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 09:49:59 am Ed Hurst wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Peter J. Vasquez Sr. wrote:
> > Using a decentralized system has it's dangers, and I think the goal
> > the developers of this distributed DNS system is more of an awakening.
> > It will be interested to see what comes from this, and what changes
> > may take place as a result. I hope I've addressed your question, I've
> > done my best to keep the answer short so as not to be too confusing.
> > If there's something else you wanted to discuss, particularly on the
> > distributed DNS project, I'd be happy to answer any questions. (I'm
> > not involved in the project, but have started looking at the code).
> 
> Outstanding answer. You summarized things I already understood and
> extended it to areas which had puzzled me.
> 
> Over the years I've kept track of a recurring theme of geeks seeking to
> protect the Net from what they consider abusive controls. It does not
> arise from something so simplistic as "corporate-government = evil
> versus hackers = good".  Some corporate players seem consistently
> benign, and a few truly evil, and most are simply opportunists. Some
> governments cozy up with lobbyists, and some simply do what governments
> have always done in seeking control. All that to say the issue at hand
> is not so much the politics, but the results for you and me. It won't
> matter who is doing what if there exists something in the nature of the
> Internet which resists certain kinds of controls.
> 
> It's more the fundamental question of the centralizers over the
> de-centralizers. What you describe is a centralized system of passing
> traffic, but that it doesn't have to be that way. Authoritative root
> server systems for DNS are centralized and trusted, but provide the
> choke point centralizers seek. As one who has suffered somewhat at the
> hands of centralizers in various ways, I'm always interested in keeping
> my eye on the counter efforts. I don't think I suffer too much from
> cinema-based fantasies, since I hate TV and movies in general, but I do
> admit to some ignorance of how the Net works. My calling and emphasis
> has been on the nature and content of information for which I use the
> Net, and I simply don't have the resources left to pursue the fine art
> of systems administration and networking (see Ephesians 4).
> 
> I recognize there is good and bad in having an Internet mono-culture. If
> everyone used the same OS and applications, it would be like the Roman
> roads, built to hasten military movements, but also easily adapted to
> gospel spreading. I doubt anyone here doesn't realize Paul's Roman
> citizenship was useful, even while Roman government was hardly benign.
> It was Rome who eventually executed Paul, essentially for his preaching.
> Other apostles went in other directions, using less centralized systems,
> but we don't have Scripture accounts of them by which to compare, but
> surely it had its advantages in leaving the Roman Empire to evangelize.
> The question was not which was better, but to what one is called. So I
> use Open Source right now, not because it's morally superior in my eyes,
> but fits my calling best. My support is conditional, but I do support
> it.
> 
> I'm trying to extrapolate from the whining entertainment pirates to
> those who have a godly reason to bypass the centralized system, even
> while taking advantage of its presence. If all we get from this is a
> better, continued distribution of Hollywood filth, they can keep it. If
> it holds promise for those of us who may need to copy the technology to
> avoid the consequences, intended or not, of increased centralized
> control, then I want to know how I might make use of it, and what I need
> to know to prepare for that.

I don't understand.  I can't think of one godly reason to bypass it. 
enlightment me.

-- 
Blessings
David M.