36 ms·

You might like to know that I've had great success with full stack web development using Rust. My website (https://mmstick.tk https://mmstick.tk) is hosted with

You might like to know that I've had great success with full stack web development using Rust. My website (https://mmstick.tk https://mmstick.tk) is hosted with the Rocket (https://rocket.rs/overview/ https://rocket.rs/overview/) web framework and operates as a fully static binary with 100% Rust code. I've even got HTTPS and Brotli compression.

executesorder66 9y ago
I get a message that says, "Your web browser does not support Brotli, and therefore is not supported. Report this as a bug to your web browser vendor." I am using Firefox 53.02 on Linux, and my browser is sending this request header: Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br As far as I know Firefox fully supports brotli compression. Any idea what is wrong?
Terribledactyl 9y ago
I'm having a bit of an issue with your site in Safari. 10.12.4 sierra, extensions turned off. https://s2.postimg.org/4t8v7lqdl/Screen_Shot_2017-05-15_at_1.57.48_PM.png https://s2.postimg.org/4t8v7lqdl/Screen_Shot_2017-05-15_at_1...
- mmstick 9y ago
  You need a web browser that supports Brotli compression -- the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. Safari does not support it, but everyone else does. Even Edge. http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli
  - detaro 9y ago
    > the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS That's utter nonsense.
    - mmstick 9y ago
      All vendors do not support Brotli compression with the HTTP protocol. Brotli is only supported when accessing a site through HTTPS. Moreover, as Brotli compresses and decompresses faster than Gzip, whilst simultaneously producing smaller file sizes, there is no point in using anything other than Brotli for HTTPS website. Hence, it's the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. All web vendors support Brotli w/ HTTPS, except Apple's WebKit. Simple.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        > Hence, it's the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. I think you're mistaken "de-facto standard" for "standard". They are not the same thing, and whether brotli actually is a de-facto standard is debatable, but it's not the standard. It's perfectly acceptable to do whatever you want with your own web stack and application. You wouldn't be getting much pushback if you simply justified it as "It's what I want to do", but you are providing evidence that is factually incorrect, where no evidence is really required. Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data.
        mmstick 9y ago
        > You wouldn't be getting much pushback if you simply justified it as "It's what I want to do" Actually, if you look at the top level comments that I've made, that's exactly what I said. What I'm getting in response to that is that I'm basically 'breaking the web' because I don't want to comply with sniffing request headers and offering gzip to Apple WebKit users. If I don't care about supporting your web browser, then I don't care about supporting your web browser. You can't make me. > Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data. That kind of security isn't a concern to me. Not having compression at all would take a larger toll on my bandwidth, and increase latency of page delivery. Bandwidth isn't free.
eridius 9y ago
Your site is returning brotli-encoded data even when the browser doesn't support it. At least, I assume that's what it's doing, because the return value is complete garbage and it contains a "Content-Encoding: br" header.
- mmstick 9y ago
  Naturally. Since moving to HTTPS, I have dropped support for gzip, and I will not be re-adding it. There is no benefit in continuing to retain legacy gzip support. Brotli can compress and decode faster than gzip, and it produces smaller file sizes. That Safari still doesn't support Brotli isn't my problem. It's Apple's problem. I'm not going to be yet another site that condones stagnant progress when everyone else has already supported it for more than a year. More sites should drop gzip support to force Apple to add support for Brotli in Safari.
  - jononor 9y ago
    You just broke your site for 40% of the web. http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli
  - kcorbitt 9y ago
    If I were focused so unapologetically on purity over pragmatism at the expense of playing nice with the wider web ecosystem, I would perhaps think twice before holding my site up as a positive example of the state of web development with Rust. You may end up doing more harm than good in the PR department. :)
    - mmstick 9y ago
      I see it as more of an Apple problem. Everyone else's web browser works fine, but Apple's doesn't. The main reason why companies like Apple still don't support Brotli even though the competition has supported it for more than a year now is because too many sites are focused on carrying legacy support for unsupported platforms like Safari. If more sites dropped support for legacy software, Apple would be forced to implement Brotli support and then everyone could benefit.
kccqzy 9y ago
When you are presenting a site saying it's a "great success," perhaps it doesn't help that it breaks in 40% of browsers.
nercury 9y ago
Please stop claiming to support HTTPS when your site breaks perfectly https-compliant browsers.
- mmstick 9y ago
  It supports HTTPS perfectly fine. I am even on the HSTS preload list. You can't get on this list unless you have a HTTPS website that meets standard requirements. https://hstspreload.org/?domain=mmstick.tk https://hstspreload.org/?domain=mmstick.tk
  - DiThi 9y ago
    That page doesn't list as a requirement serving content that the browser can decode.
Franciscouzo 9y ago
Your site does not works with Firefox ESR.
- mmstick 9y ago
  That's because ESR is a very ancient version of Firefox. Many things don't work on ESR. You need at least Firefox 52.
  - Animats 9y ago
    You need at least Firefox 52. The current release of Firefox is only 53.0.2. If you need 52 to view a site, you're overdoing the new features.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Enterprises, those companies that you want to eventually adopt Rust, usually use ESR.
dang 9y ago
We detached this ludicrous flamewar from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14344760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14344760 and marked it off-topic. You repeatedly posted uncivilly in these comments. That's a bannable offense on HN, so please don't do it again, regardless of how wrong you think others are.
- winteriscoming 9y ago
  What a mess! Came to this thread to read about Rust and its progress and this has devolved into a useless discussion about some person's website, who seems to consider that he/she is doing all the right things and the rest of the technical community is stupid. Completely lost track of what thread I was reading.
  - dang 9y ago
    That's why your friendly janitorial staff detach these and mark them off topic so they fall to the bottom. That way you only see them when there's nothing else to read. One of these years we might implement a "More" link at the bottom of threads so you have to go to a second page to see them at all.

executesorder66 9y ago

I get a message that says, "Your web browser does not support Brotli, and therefore is not supported. Report this as a bug to your web browser vendor." I am using Firefox 53.02 on Linux, and my browser is sending this request header: Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br As far as I know Firefox fully supports brotli compression. Any idea what is wrong?

Terribledactyl 9y ago

I'm having a bit of an issue with your site in Safari. 10.12.4 sierra, extensions turned off. https://s2.postimg.org/4t8v7lqdl/Screen_Shot_2017-05-15_at_1.57.48_PM.png https://s2.postimg.org/4t8v7lqdl/Screen_Shot_2017-05-15_at_1...

mmstick 9y ago
You need a web browser that supports Brotli compression -- the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. Safari does not support it, but everyone else does. Even Edge. http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli
- detaro 9y ago
  > the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS That's utter nonsense.
  - mmstick 9y ago
    All vendors do not support Brotli compression with the HTTP protocol. Brotli is only supported when accessing a site through HTTPS. Moreover, as Brotli compresses and decompresses faster than Gzip, whilst simultaneously producing smaller file sizes, there is no point in using anything other than Brotli for HTTPS website. Hence, it's the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. All web vendors support Brotli w/ HTTPS, except Apple's WebKit. Simple.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > Hence, it's the standard compression algorithm for HTTPS. I think you're mistaken "de-facto standard" for "standard". They are not the same thing, and whether brotli actually is a de-facto standard is debatable, but it's not the standard. It's perfectly acceptable to do whatever you want with your own web stack and application. You wouldn't be getting much pushback if you simply justified it as "It's what I want to do", but you are providing evidence that is factually incorrect, where no evidence is really required. Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data.
      - mmstick 9y ago
        > You wouldn't be getting much pushback if you simply justified it as "It's what I want to do" Actually, if you look at the top level comments that I've made, that's exactly what I said. What I'm getting in response to that is that I'm basically 'breaking the web' because I don't want to comply with sniffing request headers and offering gzip to Apple WebKit users. If I don't care about supporting your web browser, then I don't care about supporting your web browser. You can't make me. > Also, it should be noted that there is a valid reason to eschew compression for HTTPS on the client side, and that's security. Compression of HTTPS channels opens up the possibility for a few more forms of attack on the encrypted data. That kind of security isn't a concern to me. Not having compression at all would take a larger toll on my bandwidth, and increase latency of page delivery. Bandwidth isn't free.

eridius 9y ago

Your site is returning brotli-encoded data even when the browser doesn't support it. At least, I assume that's what it's doing, because the return value is complete garbage and it contains a "Content-Encoding: br" header.

mmstick 9y ago
Naturally. Since moving to HTTPS, I have dropped support for gzip, and I will not be re-adding it. There is no benefit in continuing to retain legacy gzip support. Brotli can compress and decode faster than gzip, and it produces smaller file sizes. That Safari still doesn't support Brotli isn't my problem. It's Apple's problem. I'm not going to be yet another site that condones stagnant progress when everyone else has already supported it for more than a year. More sites should drop gzip support to force Apple to add support for Brotli in Safari.
- jononor 9y ago
  You just broke your site for 40% of the web. http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli http://caniuse.com/#feat=brotli
- kcorbitt 9y ago
  If I were focused so unapologetically on purity over pragmatism at the expense of playing nice with the wider web ecosystem, I would perhaps think twice before holding my site up as a positive example of the state of web development with Rust. You may end up doing more harm than good in the PR department. :)
  - mmstick 9y ago
    I see it as more of an Apple problem. Everyone else's web browser works fine, but Apple's doesn't. The main reason why companies like Apple still don't support Brotli even though the competition has supported it for more than a year now is because too many sites are focused on carrying legacy support for unsupported platforms like Safari. If more sites dropped support for legacy software, Apple would be forced to implement Brotli support and then everyone could benefit.

kccqzy 9y ago

When you are presenting a site saying it's a "great success," perhaps it doesn't help that it breaks in 40% of browsers.

nercury 9y ago

Please stop claiming to support HTTPS when your site breaks perfectly https-compliant browsers.

mmstick 9y ago
It supports HTTPS perfectly fine. I am even on the HSTS preload list. You can't get on this list unless you have a HTTPS website that meets standard requirements. https://hstspreload.org/?domain=mmstick.tk https://hstspreload.org/?domain=mmstick.tk
- DiThi 9y ago
  That page doesn't list as a requirement serving content that the browser can decode.

Franciscouzo 9y ago

Your site does not works with Firefox ESR.

mmstick 9y ago
That's because ESR is a very ancient version of Firefox. Many things don't work on ESR. You need at least Firefox 52.
- Animats 9y ago
  You need at least Firefox 52. The current release of Firefox is only 53.0.2. If you need 52 to view a site, you're overdoing the new features.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Enterprises, those companies that you want to eventually adopt Rust, usually use ESR.

dang 9y ago

We detached this ludicrous flamewar from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14344760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14344760 and marked it off-topic. You repeatedly posted uncivilly in these comments. That's a bannable offense on HN, so please don't do it again, regardless of how wrong you think others are.

winteriscoming 9y ago
What a mess! Came to this thread to read about Rust and its progress and this has devolved into a useless discussion about some person's website, who seems to consider that he/she is doing all the right things and the rest of the technical community is stupid. Completely lost track of what thread I was reading.
- dang 9y ago
  That's why your friendly janitorial staff detach these and mark them off topic so they fall to the bottom. That way you only see them when there's nothing else to read. One of these years we might implement a "More" link at the bottom of threads so you have to go to a second page to see them at all.