So your advice is "grow some balls and burn bridges with one of your biggest customers with the hope that you will get taken off the banned vendor list by some other customer"?
That has to be the dumbest advice I've seen on slashdot.
If you have to look very closely to tell that it's not static content, then it doesn't deserve 47KB to render.
Let me rephrase my original point: Even Stevie Wonder wouldn't confuse Google's landing page for static content. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave without power since 1997 will know that the Google landing page is the main portal to user's accounts. Anybody with functioning eyeballs can see that Google's landing page isn't actually just the landing page, but rather the complete search interface which dynamically changes as soon as you interact with it.
Quite frankly it's an impressive feat that it ONLY takes 47KB to render.
For all those people wondering what we're comparing the iceberg to. Apparently it's bigger than:
Madrid: 604km^2 London: 1572km^2 Luxembourg: 2586km^2 Twice the size of the Australian Capitol Territory: 4716km^2 * Delaware: 6452km^2 Four times** the size of the Australian Capitol Territory: 9432km^2
* Size of iceberg actually slots in here. ** The twice the size and four times the size were both in the same article.
I firstly read about this in a Spanish newspaper claiming that it was bigger than Madrid. Afterwards, I found out in Twitter that it was bigger than London. And now I know that it is as big as Delaware! And the worst part is that I don't even have a reasonably accurate idea about how big it is! LOL.
You think you have it hard, this article says it is both twice AND four times the size of the Australian Capital Territory.
At least I know how big the ACT is but I still have no idea about the size of this iceberg.
Aren't there Linux-based soft realtime OSs that are still pretty close to Linux?
Yes though. I can't say I've ever run X on one, and if I did I sure as hell wouldn't want the GUI to take priority over anything.
On a desktop machine, nothing is more important that the UI being responsive
Being responsive 100% of the time, and the occasional stutter at full load are two very different things. There's a lot of things to call Windows and X11, but unresponsive is not one of them.
I actually think quite the opposite. I like the idea of the UI stuttering at full load. At least that provides a visual queue that something in the system is going on and that it has been given priority.
The UI needs realtime "slice" big enough to remain always responsive.
I need to disagree with that. The UI needs to be responsive, but not always 100% responsive. There is an element to truth in what you say though, the UI ALWAYS needs to remain responsive enough to allow you to recover from a bad situation. The mouse stuttering at full load, no big deal, the mouse frozen, the task manager not coming up, and being unable to kill a process because the UI isn't working on the other hand is a complete no-go.
Not to mention another security nightmare on the level of Intel ME/AMT:
Yeah sorry but no one cares about this in this given market. Pretty much every Xeon chip ever sold has been put into a motherboard with some equivalent of this as a value added extra, and at a premium price too.
If you're in the market for these and you're trying to control access at this level then you're doing your security wrong.
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Anyone who doesn't own the pipe itself is "little" in this regard. Just because Amazon has a net worth large enough to buy a small country doesn't mean he would happily hand over money to any schmuck who says "That's a fine connection you have there, it would be a shame if someone were to throttle it".
Big companies didn't get to be big companies by giving other companies charity, and size is not a defining factor on whether two companies can be aligned on a common issue.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
I'll tell you how we lived. We lived with constant stream of stories on Slashdot talking about providers dubiously throttling various things. Personally I lived with a provider who helpfully directed me to a shitty streaming service partially owned by them as an alternative to Netflix by arbitrarily creating a download limit for the internet and then not applying it to the site in question. I lived with a provider who throttled my uploads because I dared to use them and apparently paying for a 25/5 meant that using those 5 weren't "reasonable use" in their eyes.
Earlier than 2014 I remember providers fucking with routing tables to give game servers co-located in my city a worse ping than game servers on the other side of the country (which they owned). I remember receiving arbitrary connection reset packets when transfering via p2p except with certain networks.
I remember a lot of things getting progressively better the last few years.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
A monopoly with large market power has never been able to do what they want. Not in any country or any form of government around the world. To complain about this is just showing your ignorance.
Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality.
Interesting, that's not what the web looked like for the first 20 years when there were no net neutrality rules...
For the first 10 years maybe. But in the past 10 years or so there most definitely HAS been some level of fuckery with various internet connections.
We've seen all manner of source based traffic prioritization. We've seen connections intentionally slowed despite there being no load on the pipe. We've seen practices that are more fitting for hollywood blockbuster involving some black cars, Italian accents and lines which all but stopped short of saying "That's a nice video you're streaming there. It's a shame it is now counting to an arbitrary limit that I just imposed on you. But hey I'm here to help. Either watch that video from my advert laden site or give me $15 extra and I'll make your worries temporarily go away.
If you think this hasn't been a problem then you haven't been paying attention.
Right now their Uverse internet service has to give Hulu and Netflix priority because their customers demand it.
Customers are demanding nothing of the sort, and the ISPs are definitely not giving priority to the biggest horder of traffic on their networks.
What customers demand is fast internet, or internet at the advertised speeds. No one has ever demanded that their Netflix should be faster than Hulu, and why would they, asking for such a thing shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the internet works.
all it implies is that AT&T prefers to the status quo to what they are anticipating from Trump and Pai's alternative
Or they know that this won't make a difference and are getting some free PR spin in the process. There's nothing to suggest that they prefer what there is now to what Trump will bring.
There are no levels of net neutrality. You're just lumping net neutrality (source based) in with Quality of Service (type based). Two different things with different discussions and very VERY different implications.
Nothing in the net neutrality legislation ever had any impact on quality of service controls.
Huh? Since when is Google a search engine? It looks like a portal to a world of apps to me.
But on the search topic one of the great things about logging into search is results are intelligently shared across devices. It makes it very easy to search for an address in Google maps on the desktop and then step into the car and see it as a quick suggestion for navigation on a different device.
Come back when you are a perfect coder who can in a bug free way solve a problem in a part of the system where any change may fundamentally break applications.
If I follow your standards then every single IT coder who ever managed to escape from the uterus is showing signs of incompetence.
You are not confused. A sane kernel does not have this issue. A sane GUI stays responsive even with this issue. Unfortunately, Win10 does not have either.
Neither does Linux, Unix, or pretty much every OS except for BeOS.
You say "not even Linux" whereas Linux is an example of one of the worst throwbacks to ancient cruft in the name of not changing something that exists. When there is an attempt to fix this every bearded man and their dog come out of the basement complaining that {insert new thing} doesn't have {obscure feature} and that it is "change for change's sake" without actually understanding the design intent.
The "problem" is that there are far more important design goals for an OS and a GUI than to draw itself smoothly, and one of the key ones is not breaking compatibility.
I used inverted commas because frankly very few people care if their GUI stutters. Heck I would go the opposite, I'd complain if the GUI was prioritized over something more important that a computer may be wanting to do.
The page is one text entry box, and 2 buttons, plus a graphic above it. There is ZERO excuse for it being over 47,000 characters (not counting all the other stuff it pulls in).
WTF, when was the last time you visited Google.com. I see a portal to the Google account, logins, view settings, access to calendar and apps, i also see a dynamically generated logo that can be interacted with.
Who is being discouraged? Web developers and coders coming to fact the the world isn't static text and that coding should be learnt properly and given respect?
Certainly not content creators which have an easier time than ever to generate content now.
Slashdot Mirror
So your advice is "grow some balls and burn bridges with one of your biggest customers with the hope that you will get taken off the banned vendor list by some other customer"?
That has to be the dumbest advice I've seen on slashdot.
If you have to look very closely to tell that it's not static content, then it doesn't deserve 47KB to render.
Let me rephrase my original point: Even Stevie Wonder wouldn't confuse Google's landing page for static content. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave without power since 1997 will know that the Google landing page is the main portal to user's accounts. Anybody with functioning eyeballs can see that Google's landing page isn't actually just the landing page, but rather the complete search interface which dynamically changes as soon as you interact with it.
Quite frankly it's an impressive feat that it ONLY takes 47KB to render.
For all those people wondering what we're comparing the iceberg to. Apparently it's bigger than:
Madrid: 604km^2
London: 1572km^2
Luxembourg: 2586km^2
Twice the size of the Australian Capitol Territory: 4716km^2
*
Delaware: 6452km^2
Four times** the size of the Australian Capitol Territory: 9432km^2
* Size of iceberg actually slots in here.
** The twice the size and four times the size were both in the same article.
News.com.au said it was both twice AND four times the size of the Australian Capitol Territory ... in the same article.
I firstly read about this in a Spanish newspaper claiming that it was bigger than Madrid. Afterwards, I found out in Twitter that it was bigger than London. And now I know that it is as big as Delaware! And the worst part is that I don't even have a reasonably accurate idea about how big it is! LOL.
You think you have it hard, this article says it is both twice AND four times the size of the Australian Capital Territory.
At least I know how big the ACT is but I still have no idea about the size of this iceberg.
Guess what, humans move when climate changes
No. Humans will move when wars fought over resource redistribution finally pushes them into moving.
I didn't. Learn to read and pay attention who you're talking to on a public forum.
Shorter version: You're a useless dickhead. Get an education.
Aren't there Linux-based soft realtime OSs that are still pretty close to Linux?
Yes though. I can't say I've ever run X on one, and if I did I sure as hell wouldn't want the GUI to take priority over anything.
On a desktop machine, nothing is more important that the UI being responsive
Being responsive 100% of the time, and the occasional stutter at full load are two very different things. There's a lot of things to call Windows and X11, but unresponsive is not one of them.
I actually think quite the opposite. I like the idea of the UI stuttering at full load. At least that provides a visual queue that something in the system is going on and that it has been given priority.
The UI needs realtime "slice" big enough to remain always responsive.
I need to disagree with that. The UI needs to be responsive, but not always 100% responsive.
There is an element to truth in what you say though, the UI ALWAYS needs to remain responsive enough to allow you to recover from a bad situation. The mouse stuttering at full load, no big deal, the mouse frozen, the task manager not coming up, and being unable to kill a process because the UI isn't working on the other hand is a complete no-go.
Not to mention another security nightmare on the level of Intel ME/AMT:
Yeah sorry but no one cares about this in this given market. Pretty much every Xeon chip ever sold has been put into a motherboard with some equivalent of this as a value added extra, and at a premium price too.
If you're in the market for these and you're trying to control access at this level then you're doing your security wrong.
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Anyone who doesn't own the pipe itself is "little" in this regard. Just because Amazon has a net worth large enough to buy a small country doesn't mean he would happily hand over money to any schmuck who says "That's a fine connection you have there, it would be a shame if someone were to throttle it".
Big companies didn't get to be big companies by giving other companies charity, and size is not a defining factor on whether two companies can be aligned on a common issue.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
I'll tell you how we lived. We lived with constant stream of stories on Slashdot talking about providers dubiously throttling various things. Personally I lived with a provider who helpfully directed me to a shitty streaming service partially owned by them as an alternative to Netflix by arbitrarily creating a download limit for the internet and then not applying it to the site in question. I lived with a provider who throttled my uploads because I dared to use them and apparently paying for a 25/5 meant that using those 5 weren't "reasonable use" in their eyes.
Earlier than 2014 I remember providers fucking with routing tables to give game servers co-located in my city a worse ping than game servers on the other side of the country (which they owned). I remember receiving arbitrary connection reset packets when transfering via p2p except with certain networks.
I remember a lot of things getting progressively better the last few years.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
A monopoly with large market power has never been able to do what they want. Not in any country or any form of government around the world. To complain about this is just showing your ignorance.
Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality.
Interesting, that's not what the web looked like for the first 20 years when there were no net neutrality rules...
For the first 10 years maybe. But in the past 10 years or so there most definitely HAS been some level of fuckery with various internet connections.
We've seen all manner of source based traffic prioritization.
We've seen connections intentionally slowed despite there being no load on the pipe.
We've seen practices that are more fitting for hollywood blockbuster involving some black cars, Italian accents and lines which all but stopped short of saying "That's a nice video you're streaming there. It's a shame it is now counting to an arbitrary limit that I just imposed on you. But hey I'm here to help. Either watch that video from my advert laden site or give me $15 extra and I'll make your worries temporarily go away.
If you think this hasn't been a problem then you haven't been paying attention.
Right now their Uverse internet service has to give Hulu and Netflix priority because their customers demand it.
Customers are demanding nothing of the sort, and the ISPs are definitely not giving priority to the biggest horder of traffic on their networks.
What customers demand is fast internet, or internet at the advertised speeds. No one has ever demanded that their Netflix should be faster than Hulu, and why would they, asking for such a thing shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the internet works.
all it implies is that AT&T prefers to the status quo to what they are anticipating from Trump and Pai's alternative
Or they know that this won't make a difference and are getting some free PR spin in the process. There's nothing to suggest that they prefer what there is now to what Trump will bring.
There are no levels of net neutrality. You're just lumping net neutrality (source based) in with Quality of Service (type based). Two different things with different discussions and very VERY different implications.
Nothing in the net neutrality legislation ever had any impact on quality of service controls.
If you're writing a few lines of static content
When was the last time you saw a few lines of static content on the internet?
All of this talk is the metaphorical equivalent of pining for running a computer where the UI consisted of "C:\>" with a flashing cursor underneath.
Google is a great example. Anyone who thinks it's a picture, a text form and two buttons, hasn't actually looked very closely.
Huh? Since when is Google a search engine? It looks like a portal to a world of apps to me.
But on the search topic one of the great things about logging into search is results are intelligently shared across devices. It makes it very easy to search for an address in Google maps on the desktop and then step into the car and see it as a quick suggestion for navigation on a different device.
Maybe he likes to actually use the platform that he's coding for.
Maybe there's no real difference* in end user performance for software that is doing work between Windows 7 and Windows 10.
*There is a difference: Windows 10 is marginally faster.
That's a sign of incompetence, period.
Come back when you are a perfect coder who can in a bug free way solve a problem in a part of the system where any change may fundamentally break applications.
If I follow your standards then every single IT coder who ever managed to escape from the uterus is showing signs of incompetence.
You are not confused. A sane kernel does not have this issue. A sane GUI stays responsive even with this issue. Unfortunately, Win10 does not have either.
Neither does Linux, Unix, or pretty much every OS except for BeOS.
So insanity rules the crop.
You say "not even Linux" whereas Linux is an example of one of the worst throwbacks to ancient cruft in the name of not changing something that exists. When there is an attempt to fix this every bearded man and their dog come out of the basement complaining that {insert new thing} doesn't have {obscure feature} and that it is "change for change's sake" without actually understanding the design intent.
The "problem" is that there are far more important design goals for an OS and a GUI than to draw itself smoothly, and one of the key ones is not breaking compatibility.
I used inverted commas because frankly very few people care if their GUI stutters. Heck I would go the opposite, I'd complain if the GUI was prioritized over something more important that a computer may be wanting to do.
looks good but i cant find the button to log in to my account.
It was in Beta
The page is one text entry box, and 2 buttons, plus a graphic above it. There is ZERO excuse for it being over 47,000 characters (not counting all the other stuff it pulls in).
WTF, when was the last time you visited Google.com. I see a portal to the Google account, logins, view settings, access to calendar and apps, i also see a dynamically generated logo that can be interacted with.
Look more closely.
Who is being discouraged? Web developers and coders coming to fact the the world isn't static text and that coding should be learnt properly and given respect?
Certainly not content creators which have an easier time than ever to generate content now.
Maybe he likes to read things that don't get horribly broken or mangled.