Should I use Naming or InitialContext to bind my server?

[Stevens Miller]

I have an rmiregistry process running when I execute the main method in this class:

public class MyRemoteImpl extends UnicastRemoteObject implements MyRemote
{
    public MyRemoteImpl() throws RemoteException
    {
        super();
    }
    
    @Override
    public String sayHello() throws RemoteException
    {
        return "Hello RMI 2";
    }
    
    public static void main(String[] args) throws NamingException, RemoteException, AlreadyBoundException, MalformedURLException
    {
        MyRemote server = new MyRemoteImpl();

        System.out.println("Binding...");
        Naming.rebind("//192.168.2.138/RemoteHello", server);
        System.out.println("...bound!");
    }
}

It works perfectly.

This code also works perfectly:

public class MyRemoteImpl extends UnicastRemoteObject implements MyRemote
{
    public MyRemoteImpl() throws RemoteException
    {
        super();
    }
    
    @Override
    public String sayHello() throws RemoteException
    {
        return "Hello RMI 2";
    }
    
    public static void main(String[] args) throws NamingException, RemoteException, AlreadyBoundException, MalformedURLException
    {
        MyRemote server = new MyRemoteImpl();

        System.out.println("Binding...");
        new InitialContext().rebind("rmi://192.168.2.138/RemoteHello", server);
        System.out.println("...bound!");
    }
}

They are the same, except for Line 19. Using the debugger as far as I can, I don't see that these two classes (InitialContext and Naming) rely on the same code, yet (in this application) they do very similar things.

Why are there two ways to bind a registry entry to an object?

What, if anything, would make one preferable to the other?