[squid-users] got http2?
xen at dds.nl
Mon Oct 12 12:16:02 UTC 2015
Linda, Linda Walsh everywhere :p.
I only trashed your message. I love to trash Linda Walsh :P :P.
Okay, pointless message.
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> The protocol usage in the 2nd case used 'http2' -- which started me
> wondering what the heck that was...so googled around and
> found it is an optimized http/1.1 mostly meant for packing
> a website and streaming the whole thing as a byte-stream
> to the client.
Thanks for mentioning it here, I didn't even know about it, like you. And
of course you study it really well before commenting, mostly unlike me :p.
I have this feeling that I like SPDY better than HTTP2? Anyone agree?
HTTP2 only defines the transit/connection, right? The compression,
multiplexing. It seems a bit incredulous to call it a new HTTP version.
It also seems to be sponsoring corporate interests. I have this tight
feeling that it's mostly to do with a few top-10 websites like Facebook
and Twitter and Google and so on.
The lean web is long past.
Anyone ever notice how CDNs are usually the things preventing loading of a
page? It is usually a remote source that is hanging a page load. I mean
external to the website itself.
Facebook itself requires at least 300-500K per page and that is just the
frame that is sent first. After that it starts pipelining the rest of the
shortest-possible names (identifiers) and it is still this big.
Me still wonders why "paging" was not a good model. I avoid webshops that
use a continuous-load page, and thankfully there are not many.
Just the fact that the browser developers are refusing certain things,
makes it rather clear they are ... not sure how to frame or phrase it.
Let's just call it "having an agenda".
I remember how... well. You know, Apache and the no-tracking thing by
Microsoft as a default, and Apache was pushed by "the industry" to ignore
Microsoft's flag/request. The guy basically said that he was fed up with
the bullying and just complied.
I believe the browser vendors are basically "owned" by a group centering
around Facebook and Google. Just an impression based on their behaviours.
The way they are pushing invalidation of older certificates in order to
maintain security. It's not reasonable, and whenever something is not
reasonable, something else is not being said.
Sounds a bit paranoid perhaps. Perhaps I find it more important than it
More information about the squid-users