So there's a company that wants to get in between you and your dns queries.
That's a very bad idea.
That is like asking trusting some other company to call your bank for you, or trusting some other company to handle your phone calls for you if they make it a bit more convenient for you.
The important question to ask is "what does OpenDNS get for signing up all these people to use their 'dns' service."
How is this different from RealNames?
I trust these guys about as much as I trust Plaxo, which is to say zero.
UPDATE: I now know more about them and have thought a bit more about why my reaction was so strong. Here's what I don't like about OpenDNS: their business model is advertising-based, so their goal is to have lots of ads on web pages. More domain-squatting-type ads is not good for the web or for users. Also, centralization of dns is not a goal that we should be working towards. For dns to be robust, it needs to be decentralized. The goal of OpenDNS would be to have everyone use it's service and then we'd all be at the mercy of OpenDNS (which Blackberry users experienced last week when their centralized service went down.)
I hope it's more clear why I'm not comfortable with this new service.
There's a major difference here you are ignoring. In this case we let you decide all of your own shortcuts. RealNames never gave you that control. This is all about creating user benefits.
The comparison isn't apt at all. Happy to answer other questions...
-David Ulevitch (CEO, OpenDNS)
ps, I'm also an OpenDNS user. I wouldn't let my service be as useless as something like RealNames.
I was a little bit worried when I started using OpenDNS, but am a very happy customer (and no, I'm not affiliated with OpenDNS). When Comcast took over as my ISP, I woke up unable to surf the web. Strangely, I did notice that I could communicate via Skype, so I had connectivity, but something was wrong. On a hunch, I tried OpenDNS (got the info at work), changed my DNS settings, and everything is great. After reading more about Comcast's DNS reliability, I have stayed with OpenDNS. I don't blindly trust OpenDNS, but I do trust them at least as much as Comcast. I also like the concept of anti-phishing functionality of OpenDNS, though I haven't seen it in action (which in some ways is good)
I don't get your problem -- you already let a company get in between you and your DNS requests -- your ISP. Why do you trust them more than a company that is dedicated to making secure, reliable, and private DNS available to everyone?
Nathan D - simple, because I pay them for that service (along with other services.)
OpenDNS is a free service that is advertising-backed. If the goal of OpenDNS is more advertising, just imagine a future of the web where OpenDNS-served pages with ads are all over the place. Is that a web you will find useful or relevant? dns-query-based ads are awfully close to spam or domain-squatting ads in my book.
I also do not like the fact that OpenDNS's goal is a more centralized dns, which is antithesis to the goal of dns itself. For dns to be robust, we want to have it widely distributed, not centralized at OpenDNS.
Gen,
Using OpenDNS doesn't centralize the DNS any more than it already is. We follow the same roots that ICANN oversees.
Our network is widely distributed, anycasted, etc.
If you are arguing that we can do things that are bad for users then that's fine, but that's a different point and our users would just stop using us.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point.