Chrome's Lite Pages Speed Up HTTPS Webpages on Slow Connections (venturebeat.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome's Lite Pages Speed Up HTTPS Webpages on Slow Connections (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @04:45AM from the speeding-things-up dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Frustrated by web pages that never seem to load properly? Well, Google hopes to make them a thing of the past. Today, the company announced that Chrome on Android's Data Saver, a feature that automatically improves page loading using "built-in optimizations" and dedicated servers -- speeding them up by a factor of two and reducing data usage by up to 90 percent -- now supports encrypted HTTPS webpages. Previously, it only worked with unencrypted HTTP content. The latest stable version of Chrome on Android indicates in the URL bar when a lightweight version of a web page -- a Lite page -- is being displayed. Tapping the indicator shows additional information and provides an option to load the original version of the page. Google says that Chrome will automatically disable Lite pages on a per-site basis when it detects that "users frequently opt to load the original page."

84 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

The real cause: SHITTY JavaScript that pulls in half the world's code base just to render "Welcome to my shitty web page!"
If you're "web developer" creating such abominations, you are a turdbrain dumbass and probably too incompetent to jerk off.
1. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by jellomizer · 2019-03-12 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps browsers should have some of the common JavaScript libraries preinstalled like Jquery and Angular.
  Or have a way to limit how much of these libraries we need to download to get the page to work. A lot of site you have to download a meg of js code, just so the developer and shortcut a document.getElementById(object).innerHTML = "string" command.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re: JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Chrome has Dave me to Firefox with help of some of it's heinous plugins. Screenshots to follow!
3. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why? You don't need shitty jQuery for anything anymore.
4. Re: JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Browsers should not have common js preinstalled. They should cache the stuff, works well if the stuff really is common.
5. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Oligonicella · 2019-03-12 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your subject line is bullshit, as your post points out. It's bad programmers. Why that's insightful is most likely due to JS haters and not logic. Don't for a second think any other web language can't be abused in the same way.
6. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Not totally bullshit. Running scripts in a browser takes resources and slows things down. Running a LOT of scripts and pulling in ads and malware from all over the known universe slows things down a LOT. Web sites that are kept relatively simple with minimal scripting tend to be fairly quick.
  I've seen sites (especially "news" oriented ones) with 50 or more ad and other script servers. Often, they just don't work, even with all the malware whitelisted (temporarily, with a browser reset afterward). That's poor web design, and frankly it interferes with the purpose of the site (to display ads and make money) if the site is so unresponsive that people just go elsewhere.
7. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by s122604 · 2019-03-12 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  "shitty" jquery's basic implementation is actually very small...
  Leet frameworks like Angular, or React (with the right plugins), is where the bloat comes in
8. Re: JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by skids · 2019-03-12 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you are recommending sites source their js from a site other than their own?
  I didn't do any dabbling into ECMAscript until recently. Glad I waited. Seems modern ECMAScript plus HTML5 makes most of the frameworks useless if you are developing something that doesn't have to run on some grandmother's iMac G5.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
9. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  yeah - there is occasionally highly complex websites that are almost applications warranting such complex javascript (e.g., a fully featured email client).
  But news sites? Forums? Shopping sites, blogs, marketing... virtually any other site? No.
  (Hell, half of them probably don't need *ANY* JavaScript!)
10. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by ilsaloving · 2019-03-12 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on! Don't sugar coat things and tell us how you REALLY feel!
11. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by ilsaloving · 2019-03-12 10:22 · Score: 2
  
  The subject line isn't bullshit. Javascript really is that garbage of a language. While yes, it is true that poor programmers can bollocks up anything, a poorly made language will amplify that behaviour while a good language will mitigate it.
  Javascript is so abysmal that it goes one step further and not only makes it trivial to write garbage code, it actually makes it difficult to write _good_ code. It's a god-forsaken clusterfuck that makes about as much sense as Ted Bundy running a rape crisis centre.
  If Javascript didn't suck so bad, why is there a ginormous ecosystem of products whose sole purpose is to bring about some level of sanity and control? Hell, there are literally entire languages out there (eg: TypeScript) that exist for no other reason than to provide a layer of stability to Javascript. Literally no other programming language has this problem. Not one. Not even Perl.
  Remember, Javascript was never designed or intended to reach the point it has. It was supposed to be a minor glue language, confined to minor DOM operations within the browser. Now people are using it to do every damn thing under the sun, including drive server code.
  I find myself missing the days when we accused Microsoft Office of being bloated. Now we have Electron-based apps that are so hideously inflated beyond all reasonable expectations that a single chat app can take GIGAbytes of memory!. The list of failings caused by the Javascript explosion is nearly endless.
12. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Just turn off JavaScript entirely. Problem solved.
13. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  I see you are volunteering to jerk me offf?
14. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-13 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  But JQuery is still a JavaScript wrapper. Browsers already has JavaScript built-in, so no need a wrapper. Unless you can't do scripting in real JavaScript?
15. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by parkinglot777 · 2019-03-13 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Your subject line is bullshit, as your post points out. It's bad programmers. Why that's insightful is most likely due to JS haters and not logic. Don't for a second think any other web language can't be abused in the same way.
  You are correct and incorrect about JavaScript. You are correct that the problem stems from programmers (or those who do scripting). But that is the point! You can hardly find someone who really knows JavaScript inside out nowadays (but rather JQuery or any other wrappers). Most of programmers simply use others' libraries because they don't want to reinvent the wheel (as a common concept). Besides, reusing others' libraries save a lot of implementation time. As a result, most people simply take an easy way out regardless initial page load time and resources.
  The language itself is a bit of a problem as well; however, to me, it is a good language to do certain tasks, but not the way websites are using nowadays.
16. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-14 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  +1
  It's getting right back to the shitty every fscking site has to be chockfull of fscking useless flash sh!t, now it's fscking usless javascript sh!t
  Only thing worse are all of these goddamned pages INSISTING on using fucking tiles for everything. Yeh. I know. redding is teh hard and stuff...
17. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by DeVilla · 2019-03-14 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  There is a good language hiding in Javascript, but there is a huge mess of bad there too. There is a reason that there is a book called "Javascript: The Good Parts". The saddest part being that there's still a chapter having to cover some of the "Bad Parts" because of the boundary cases where a "Bad Part" tramples on a "Good Part".
  One of Javascript's problems ,that it shares with PHP, was that it was never really designed to be much of what it has become. Several of the "Good Parts", like the MOP, was a hack that accidentally could be abused to do really cool things. It's kind of like unchained mode in a VGA adapter. (Although VGA was really engineered, they just didn't block out certain "don't cares" and wound up with some useful side effects.)
18. Re:JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! by DeVilla · 2019-03-14 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I made the same mistake as you originally. But I had South Park on and realized it was an accent. He's saying "CITY".
Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by luvirini · 2019-03-12 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I mean the default for chrome for android is that Google will read everything you browse?
1. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-12 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No.
  They have a database of commonly accessed content that they have pre-compressed on their own servers, such as Javascript frameworks. When the browser notices it needs to load one, it instead loads from the Google server or uses a locally cached copy. This happens even if the site said "load my copy", which usually means that the browser should re-download it no matter what.
  Occasionally this breaks things because some sites modify their local copies, hence the need for the override.
  This does not require any data about your browsing habits to be sent to Google, except in cases where you opt-in to sending it when you click on the override. It is explicitly opt-in, turned off by default.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  When the browser notices it needs to load one, it instead loads from the Google server
  That's not opt-in. That's automatically telling Google what my browser wants to load.
3. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  How fucking thick are you? If the feature contacts a server (Google) without the page itself or my human action requesting it--not a browser action taken automatically--then it's definitely spyware.
  My browser has NO BUSINESS calling Google for arbitrary pages. None whatsoever.
4. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that. It only knows to even ask for that resource because it has a local SQL database of patterns to match.
  And remember that the data saver function is also off by default and entirely opt-in anyway.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  A SMALL leak? Like speculative execution?
  The net result is that Google knows I didn't have a particular piece of content before, and now they know I want it.
  I DO NOT want them to know if I want or need ANYTHING. They have the upper hand in an asymmetrical information war, and any little extra piece can be combined with other data to give them a more complete picture than if they were simply cut off.
6. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  And that would break HTTPS unless Google installed a trusted CA cert that allows them to perform a MITM interception of encrypted traffic -- which is why the feature was until recently only available for unencrypted HTTP content. So yes, Google is reading everything you browse.
7. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by jpaine619 · 2019-03-12 06:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  While I mostly agree with you, you have made a small error in your logic. It's not your browser. It's a free browser that you downloaded from Google that has been coded to do what they want it to do.
  I despise Google (for most things) but there is an element of entitlement in you demanding that software, you paid nothing for, behave in a manner you dictate. If you had paid for the software, then you'd have an argument (of sorts). But, you haven't. You're placing demands on something you have vested no money in. There's an old saying "Beggars can't be choosers".
  Get a different browser.. One that conforms to your desire. How many stories, about Google siphoning up huge amounts of personal data and related information, do we have to have before you people ditch Chrome?
  You are not Google's customer. You are Google's PRODUCT and you are being sold as such. This isn't news. This has been going on for at least a decade.
8. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  It used to be that I could use lynx or links. But now, so much for the semantic web--you can't even GET the semantically marked-up content without...Javascript to load it.
  Nobody serves web pages that are usable in a gracefully degraded way anymore. The problem isn't a lack of browsers.
9. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by BringsApples · 2019-03-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think that there are no browsers out there that one can pay for, and have it not spy on you. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
10. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by WaffleMonster · 2019-03-12 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  What else do you call it when information is being leaked from secure site to Google including internal resources loaded and page URLs?
  
  This does not require any data about your browsing habits to be sent to Google
  Not according to chromium blog:
  https://blog.chromium.org/2019...
  "When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google. "
  Sharing URL is very much requiring data about browsing habits.
11. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by WaffleMonster · 2019-03-12 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that.
  Where are you getting your information?
  The only place I could find that has any information about this feature is this:
  https://blog.chromium.org/2019...
  It says specifically "When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google."
  What do you know that overrides this?
12. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  A SMALL leak? Like speculative execution?
  The net result is that Google knows I didn't have a particular piece of content before, and now they know I want it.
  I DO NOT want them to know if I want or need ANYTHING. They have the upper hand in an asymmetrical information war, and any little extra piece can be combined with other data to give them a more complete picture than if they were simply cut off.
  You could win this battle in your war by not using Google products. Can't do that? Well, you're weak, and would probably lose your war anyway. I'll have your butler leave a pistol on the nightstand. You'll know what to do.
13. Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-12 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  you paid nothing for
  It's a bit more complex than that, because Google wants me to use its browser. My opinion an desires therefore carry a bit of weight. Maybe a milligram or two.
  
  You are not Google's customer. You are Google's PRODUCT and you are being sold as such.
  Well, no, you are both. Google needs to serve you in order for you to see the advertising space it sells to other companies. It's similar to TV - you are their product for advertisers, but you are also their customer and they need to serve your interests. When they don't you leave, as we have seen with cord cutting and people cancelling their cable subscriptions.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You want me to LET you MITM my connection?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 04:51 · Score: 2

So you want me to report every page I visit to you, MITM them. And then, only then, can I opt out and reload the normal way? Fuck. NO!
Data Saver is spyware. Chrome Lite is spyware. Fuck. NO.
1. Re:You want me to LET you MITM my connection?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  You probably should re-compile the browser codebase for every new webpage. You know, just to make sure.
2. Re:You want me to LET you MITM my connection?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Apps
  Important: Device implementers should not whitelist apps. Even if they do, users may remove them. Including other apps forces users to decide on which to apply Data Saver.
  All app developers must act to implement Data Saver, including OEMs and carriers with preloaded apps."
3. Re:You want me to LET you MITM my connection?! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-03-12 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't they already MITM connections through their VPN?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
google walls off the internet by goombah99 · 2019-03-12 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Holy cow this is the very thing we are afraid of. like Facebooks Internet basics initiative and all the links inside facebook that only work inside facebook. Already many web pages are no longer accessible on an iphone unless you install chrome. Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
I de-installed chrome just like I quit facebook

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:google walls off the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Do no Evil.
2. Re:google walls off the internet by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-12 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  You have paranoid fantasies about Google secretly and illegally watching your every move online, yet trust the Chrome uninstaller?
  Better dig a hole, throw your computer in it, bury it, then burn any clothes you have have worn at any time you were alive. Just in case.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:google walls off the internet by BringsApples · 2019-03-12 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking like you, but he didn't say that he uninstalled it. He said that he de-installed it. I assume he chose that word carefully.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
4. Re:google walls off the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Technically Chrome doesn't even install anything. It just runs. That's why you don't need admin privilege to put it on your system.
5. Re:google walls off the internet by thegarbz · 2019-03-13 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I de-installed chrome just like I quit facebook
  Cool story. What other ill informed knee jerk reactions did you take?
  
  Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
  If you didn't uninstall Chrome maybe you could Google what this change actually does so you would realise why your comment sounds incredibly stupid.
6. Re:google walls off the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-15 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Embarrassingly, you show you are clueless when you criticize others not realizing they are correct.. The new google accelerated pages don't work right on all browsers now. This is a fact. Like Microsoft embrace and extend they just broke the internet. Might want to look into it since you obviously are not aware of this.
Another toll-booth in the making... by QuietLagoon · 2019-03-12 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

... if you want your content to make it to the device requesting it, please pay a toll to google, then proceed.
Just like with "AMP" pages. by Moskit · 2019-03-12 05:05 · Score: 1

The goal is not to make life easier for user, but for Google.
1. Re:Just like with "AMP" pages. by reanjr · 2019-03-12 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, the goal here is the same goal Opera had when they added the feature a decade or so ago. It provides a marked improvement in page load time. Yes, it requires sending info through the provider. But it absolutely is a killer feature for shitty mobile connections. The Opera version - at least - would pre-render the page on the server, then generate a vastly simplified version of the page that is designed to render pretty much the same way. Because most web pages are utter shite filled with atrocious amounts of garbage, this has a significant impact in the amount of shit that gets passed through your tiny pipe.
2. Re:Just like with "AMP" pages. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  With modern tech companies, it's like getting mugged, then the muggar bombards you with ads to pay for them to rape you, and all the while they're selling your private information to other muggers to help them mug and rape you more efficiently.
  You paid for it with your tax dollars, because they certainly didn't.
3. Re:Just like with "AMP" pages. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  My phone's Internet access is faster than my home ISP. Because that's what no competition and monopolies gets you.
  I don't need this at home, and I definitely don't need it on a tracking device I already carry around, just so it can be more omniscient. Both my connections are plenty fast, and I'd rather NOT LOAD ADS AND SCRIPTS AT ALL than load them from Google.
4. Re:Just like with "AMP" pages. by Oligonicella · 2019-03-12 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh gods yes. Never trust *anything* Google does for your "benefit".
Going down the Opera list of features... by reanjr · 2019-03-12 05:17 · Score: 1

It seems lately like the Chrome team is just going through a list of features available in Opera in 1998.
1. Re:Going down the Opera list of features... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  I came down into the comments just to see who would point it out. Kudos.
2. Re:Going down the Opera list of features... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  Soon Opera will have features available in Chrome. Like market share.
I only have a 25Mb/s connection by bobstreo · 2019-03-12 05:21 · Score: 1

but I did notice that if you really want to speed up web page loading, a combination of uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and NoScript can drastically reduce your load times. They will save you tons of bandwidth as well if you're facing cap issues.
It is amazing how much faster browsing becomes.
If you REALLY want to speed up your quick access to Internet web sites, elinks seems to be a good way to quickly extract text. You can also pipe pages to scripts...
1. Re:I only have a 25Mb/s connection by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  exactly. just block all google ad servers and your speed problems disappear.
2. Re: I only have a 25Mb/s connection by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  True
It's not the page by Bobrick · 2019-03-12 05:23 · Score: 1

Well, it's not so much the page but all the goddamn ads that not only take more bandwidth than the freaking text article I'm trying to read, but move the page up around as they finally load... as I'm trying to read the goddamn article. Get off my goddamn lawn, ads!
1. Re:It's not the page by green1 · 2019-03-12 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The worst part about this initiative is that using Chrome on mobile, this "feature" bypasses all adblockers. (mobile adblockers use DNS and/or VPN to filter the pages, this bypasses both of those)
  
  So the "fast" way is actually slower...
2. Re:It's not the page by BringsApples · 2019-03-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, the internet is becoming quite a commercial. Maybe you haven't tried out Firefox's adblockers. They work very well. Loading pages can be slow as hell, but they render without any ads, which is really nice.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
It's time for a push to retake the internet. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:27 · Score: 0

Just say NO! to javascript. Just say NO! to css that collapses content by default and requires javascript to expand it back out. Just say no to webpages that take up all your ram and crash your browser.
There is no excuse for the wasted bandwidth, memory, and content hidden in modern webpages. If it isn't visible to the use when the webpage is rendered, it really shouldn't be loaded by default. Yet it often is.
We *CAN* take back the internet, open source, etc. But it will only happen if the people decide they want to. There is a long road ahead but the glorious information superhighway of the 90s to early 00s can be ours once again, if only we the people can remember the principles that once made us great, whether American, European, Chinese, British, Indian, or any of the many other great nations that make up this planet and this internet.
If you want to do your part, take a few hours from reddit and go read/post to usenet instead (https://www.eternal-september.org for free text-only access, or giganews and company for you paying types.) Go find an internet based BBS to hang out on (I recommend Qodem for Win32/OSX/Linux.) If you're a web designer serving static content, go and test on only browsers or in a VM with only 256-512 megs of ram and no graphics acceleration. Check if the page is readable with and without CSS. Fancy formatting is nice, but HTML was meant to intelligently reorganize to the browser. If yours doesn't you failed at the most important step of your content, if not for visual readers, then for disabled ones uses a screenreader. If you need group chat, go and chat on an IRC server, or better yet, go and add a new channel to one of the XMPP conference servers. IM, Offline Messaging, and Groupchat all in one!
If we push back now we can make a difference. This isn't the late 90s, the technology is here and mature. There are steps for improvement, like more metadata privacy on public services like nntp or xmpp, but contrary to marketing from all those proprietary upstarts usurping the standards thrones (Slack/discord for IRC, reddit for usenet, facebook/kik/qq/wechat/signal/snapchat for IM/VOIP) none of them offer you privacy or security, and unlike them, the open services were run by and for the community, because it provided both a commercial and informational benefit to all. If we can bring that back, particularly by using torrent links in place of uuencoded binaries (which was usenet's fall) then we can finally have services by and for internetizens that aren't controlled by corporations once again.
Fellow netizens, this is your call to arms. Make it count or you might never have the opportunity again.
1. Re:It's time for a push to retake the internet. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Woah buddy. Calm down. All CSS does it abstract the content from the formatting. It's not inherently evil. I use Wordpress for my website and if you think I'm going to go back to manually maintaining pages, you are mistaken. I could use something like jekyllrb.com but even that requires substantially more work than a Wordpress website where all I care about is the content and everything else happens automatically.
no thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 05:34 · Score: 0

google can fuck right off with their non-standard, nay standard-breaking, www 'extensions'.
getting their insidious tendrils in all data served worldwide.
please let some brilliant soul think of a way to topple them.
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:20 · Score: 0

Frustrated by web pages that never seem to load properly?
No. Ad and script blocking means even my 2011-era Macbook Air has lightning fast browsing.
New flash: Browsers suffer self inflicted wonds by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 06:21 · Score: 1

You're kidding right? Lite weight pages load faster? Here I thought loading megabytes of js, css, and other crap were zero cost operations.
Disclaimer I do not work for Google, never will. Here's some free advice, walled gardens are not new nor is the concept of "optimised" content. That is, content written specifically for a platform, see AOL, webworkers, http manifests etc.
What has changed is Google attacking every public standard they can with little after thought as to the implications outside THEIR environment. One blaring example in this case is their castrating parallel HTTP requests. I won't rehash everything here but I strongly suggest people read about a little thing called HTTP pipelining. You used to be able to configure things like how many parallel requests to make and over what number of sockets. Browsers removed those controlls enitrely.
To understand why that matters, try viewing a slow page, locally. Then start removing parts of it... embeded fonts, custom css, etc. Browsers are very fast at rendering it's all the other shit companies like GOOGLE AND MOZILLA have bastardized HTML with.
tl;DR Tech companies created the problem so you buy their solutions.
Re:Hosts files speed you up 3 ways by green1 · 2019-03-12 07:07 · Score: 1

This bypasses the hosts file by using a google resolver.
Screw Chrome - go FF or others... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:33 · Score: 0

@ least FireFox has settings to avoid that bs (& it is bs slowing you down + being broken constantly (SSL to TLS anyone?)):
network.dnsCacheEntries 0
network.trr.mode to 5 (SHUTS IT OFF)
network.trr.uri (set to 208.67.222.222)
* ... & "VOILA"!
APK
P.S.=> Google's destroying themselves on every front possible in the eyes of users from what I'm seeing - trying to turn other browsers into "advertising machines" too but you see FF isn't "obeying" thank goodness... apk
1. Re:Screw Chrome - go FF or others... apk by green1 · 2019-03-12 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  Chrome also has a way to turn this off, just turn "Data Saver" off.
Thanks green1 (live & learn)... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:46 · Score: 0

See subject: I don't use Googleware of any type (online OR offline/local) but that'll be handy to "overcome objections" as I did for FireFox which you replied to.
* Again - thanks, see subject!
APK
P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS!!!" apk
It's what is called "Slashvertisement"? by fbobraga · 2019-03-12 07:51 · Score: 1

I'm right?
grokparsefailure by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 07:53 · Score: 0

APK prease2lrn2engrish k.
1. Re:grokparsefailure by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's not APK's fault you're illiterate, moron. Everyone else replying understood him perfectly. Take your retard meds.
AMP by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 09:59 · Score: 0

Last night I loaded a page, and it was very heavy on ads, and very light on article. I was sure there must have been a "next page" link to continue the article, but there was none to be found.
Reloading didn't help. Then I noticed the URL had "amp" in it. I cut that out, and while the resulting page had some ads, it also had the full article. F-ing AMP.
Correct title by rcharbon · 2019-03-12 10:22 · Score: 1

"Google will block your content when it feels like it"
binary by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 11:59 · Score: 0

how about serving binary pages instead of html. People can still write HTML, it just gets compiled into a binary representation which would compact the hell out it. Should be easy enough to standardize.
Hosts files speed you up 3 ways by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 12:01 · Score: 0

See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p
More security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less.
Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition w/ security bugs (DNS/AV) + overhead slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploit!
* Faster/Safer resolution vs. DNS + script & ad blocking = 3 way speedup, natively!
APK
P.S.=> Protects vs. scripts/trackers (kernelmode faster vs. usermode slower NoScript vs. 3rd party script)/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware download/malcript/email malpayload
HTTPS by AHuxley · 2019-03-12 13:36 · Score: 1

will now get approved ads to you quicker.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
NO by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-12 15:02 · Score: 0

It installs in the user's home folder, numbnuts.
It DOES NOT "just run".
One of the worst offenders being... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-13 00:33 · Score: 0

Slashdot.
It's not loading in Surf (js, I suppose). Netsurf loads it without complete formatting.
If Microsoft did that, I'd understand it, but a tech site should know better.
Sounds like Amazonâ(TM)s Silk browser by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-13 01:11 · Score: 0

Isnâ(TM)t this exactly what the browser that comes installed on Kindle tablets does, with Amazon as the middleman?
Innovation by Plumpaquatsch · 2019-03-13 01:52 · Score: 1

Chrome now comes pre-loaded with all Google tracking JavaScripts!

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.