Slashdot Mirror
Google Cuts Chrome Page Load Times In Half w/ SPDY
An anonymous reader writes "It appears as if Google has quietly implemented the SPDY HTTP replacements in Chrome (well, we knew that), and its websites. All its websites were recently updated with SPDY features that address some of the HTTP latency issues. The result? Google says the pageload times were cut about in half. SPDY will be open source, so there is some hope that other browser manufacturers will add SPDY as well."
No, because the Microsoft way to embrace, extend, extinguish was to keep the "how to extend" part to itself and secret, like what they did with Kerberos.
This is open sauced. You are free to implement it in your own stuff.
You would have known that if you read the article.
--
BMO
Some people choose not to block ads.
I'll take a stab at it :
Everything is sent through an encrypted channel making it difficult to filter out ads before they hit the client (like with privoxy for example.)
No cashing ("Since we're proposing to do almost everything over an encrypted channel, we're making caching either difficult or impossible." -Protocol Draft) means you'll be served "fresh" ads every time.
So it looks like this would be good news for Google's core business.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
My favorite part of the SPDY is server push: now advertisers can clog my internet channel and hog the browser with ads long before the AdBlock kicks in. Or a hacked site would host malware and load it onto potential victims harddrives in parallel to normal surfing. Imagination is the only limit - of how it can go wrong.
For the security reasons, I think SPDY is a bad thing.
And I'm personally not bothered with 1-2s loading times.
P.S. The Chrome guys instead would have invested more times in the bookmarks, to make them useful. They could start by integrating Chrome with the Google Bookmarks.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I cannot be the only person to think this is not a good thing. So now we'll have sites that have to run both technologies with regular HTTP/TCP as fallback and we fragment the web browser ecosystem even more.
Thanks Google. As much as I want HTTP to be faster, I think this way is a bit degrading to the web... There was no standards process. It will probably now be rushed as a standard.
Basically its a fake way of making Google look faster, so you either adopt Google's tech to get ahead. It reeks of a Microsoft strategic move to me. Can't optimize the browser? Change the browser and make an incompatible change! Well done...
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
With Honeycomb, doesn't Google have a history of saying things will be released as open source, and then not releasing the source?
Yes, if one time ever you say you will release something open source, and then later say you're going to delay that release, you are immediately evil liars who have a history of lying about everything and are never to be trusted again. Never mind that google had a legitimate reason for delaying that release, never mind that many companies that support open source often run into problems that cause them to delay source release, never mind that the only reason you want them to release the source is so some asshole can shove it onto a phone where it doesn't belong and then post an article to slashdot talking about how much of a piece of shit Honeycomb is because it doesn't work on their phone, Google is evil goddammit!