[simoncion]

It seems that you don't know what a stub resolver is.

A stub resolver is a piece of software which uses the DNS (and other) servers listed in the system configuration to resolve names to addresses. The stub resolver may use a variety of strategies when deciding which of the configured servers to use, how to time the queries, and what to cache; but stub resolvers respect the system admin's wishes WRT what name resolution servers to talk to.

See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-74 and: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4033#section-7

[davidu]

There is no connection between a stub resolver as Chrome is implementing it, and the system-indicated DNS server.

This, as an aside, is what's wrong with HN. People cite RFCs or other datapoint as if it validates their point, when in fact, it does no such thing. You can run 10 stub resolvers on your system, each talking to a different DNS server. A stub simply indicates that it lacks the fortitude for full-blown root-down DNS resolution and validation. It might even still have a cache of sorts. That's it.

Why my post got marked down, I'll never know.

[simoncion]

Firstly I'm not making a point, I'm giving you information that your vague hand-wavy rant seems to indicate that you don't have. Secondly, I point to the RFCs to indicate that my description of stub resolvers isn't just my opinion, but is somewhat in line with the community definition.

I never said that one could not have multiple stub resolvers installed on a single system. I also never intended to imply this. There's no reason to believe that the Chromium stub resolver will do anything but intelligent caching and fetching. Certainly, there's nothing in the linked Google Plus post to make me believe otherwise. Mr. Chan mentions that writing a browser-specific stub resolver is really the wrong thing to do, but it's something that they really need to do to get their target DNS query performance and to detect and work around certain kinds of really shitty breakage.

Why did you get downvoted? Perhaps because you said

I like how they mask very crystal-clear strategy...

when the strategy is anything but clear to anyone but you. By way of explanation, you point to a multi-page article about you and OpenDNS in which -among many other things- you say "[Google has] a separate privacy policy for Google DNS, and I’m sure they are hypersensitive about privacy concerns, so I wouldn’t be too paranoid [about the possibility of DNS query logging and data mining].". I'm not sure what strategy it is that you're worked up about, but it would be really nice if you'd come out and say it, rather than being all oblique and mysterious.

Additionally, it would seem that you're the CEO or President or something of OpenDNS? It's exceedingly poor form to say vague FUDdy smelling things about companies that compete with your core business. If you're going to say something, man up and say it; don't make others feel around to maybe discover a hint of what your point was.