Here are some more articles for you to read about DDT:
This one points out the many problems with nets - they break easily and which rendered them essentially useless - and studies note that even when they are provided free of charge, less than 56% of children sleep under them.
Fortunately, there are highly effective alternatives. The only problem with this method is that it is politically unpopular in the developed world, and, most dismaying, it is shunned on environmental grounds that have no relationship to usage in malaria control.
The best method of protection against malaria, in use for 50 years, is indoor residual spraying (IRS), which consists simply of spraying insecticide on the interior walls of houses. And the most effective, safest, cheapest, longest-lasting insecticide for this job is DDT–it crucially deters mosquitoes from entering a building where it has been sprayed. DDT eradicated malaria from the U.S. and Europe and its careful use led to dramatic declines in many other parts of the world. But over the last four decades environmental activists have persuaded public health professionals against using insecticide sprays, especially DDT.
Where this dubious advice has been followed, malaria rates have risen proportionately to the reduction in spraying. But fortunately, those countries that did not have to rely on foreign funding for malaria protection–and could therefore afford to make their own public health decisions–went back to using DDT. A private initiative by a mining company in Zambia, covering over 360,000 of its workers, their families, and surrounding villages, reduced malaria incidence by 50 percent in just one year.  After South Africa suffered its worst ever malaria outbreak, it decided to risk Western displeasure and revert to the old methods. In one year, incidence of malaria was reduced by 80 percent. 
And since you quoted the NY Times above here is an article from them on the issue as well:
If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia -- not to mention other poor countries in Africa -- there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.
One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor -- by opposing the use of DDT.
"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies."
The poor countries that were able to keep malaria in check tend to be the same few that continued to use DDT, like Ecuador. Similarly, in Mexico, malaria rose and fell with the use of DDT. South Africa brought back DDT in 2000, after a switch to other pesticides had led to a surge in malaria, and now the disease is under control again. The evidence is overwhelming: DDT saves lives.
But most Western aid agencies will not pay for anti-malarial programs that use DDT, and that pretty much ensures that DDT won't be used. Instead, the U.N. and Western donors encourage use of insecticide-treated bed nets and medicine to cure malaria.
Bed nets and medicines are critical tools in fighting malaria, but they're not enough. The existing anti-malaria strategy is an underfinanced failure, with malaria probably killing 2 million or 3 million people each year.
It goes on to say that it doesn't always work perfectly, for example it is hard to apply in areas with remote villages, but continues:
But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT -- 450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in the 1960's to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.
There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.
So again, just because some mosquitos build a resistance does not mean DDT stops working to prevent malaria, as some of the links you quoted suggested. As the link posted above points out, the few poor countries that continued to use it despite the US ban in the 70s have mostly managed to keep malaria at bay. Malaria outbreaks rise and fall with the use of DTT - in other words the evidence is overwhelming that it works- and nets and medication are often not enough to prevent death.