2 ms·

> A good estimate of bloatiness should not require knowledge of network topology. It does, because the definition of bloatness depends on the network speed. W

> A good estimate of bloatiness should not require knowledge of network topology. It does, because the definition of bloatness depends on the network speed. What counts as bloat for an user sitting in Singapore isn't the same as an user sitting in Jakarta. > Beyond the fact that the network can be mapped (Google surely does this) and simulated Network topology is irrelevant in this case. The ISP in Jakarta might have a satellite connection to Singapore, but have a CDN and it will load faster than in another ISP with a 10G international fiber link to Singapore. > All of which is independent of the number and location of CDNs. That's completely wrong. Today, the vast majority of internet traffic is served from CDNs, CDNs (and their placements) are critical for the internet as we know it.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> It does, because the definition of bloatness depends on the network speed. No, it doesn't. It depends on the proportion of actual content to the unnecessary cruft. The difference is that what a Singaporean considers bloat might prevent someone in Jakarta from accessing the site at all. > That's completely wrong. Today, the vast majority of internet traffic is served from CDNs, CDNs (and their placements) are critical for the internet as we know it. That is if you include streaming video, which is off-topic for this discussion. Imagine a perfect world with the ultimate CDN solution - something like IPFS, which ensures everyone is a CDN to everyone else (instead of wasting bandwidth with multiple downloads of the same content). The concept of bloat wouldn't disappear in such a world, because bloated websites will still require you to download unnecessary amount of data to your machine, and will reduce your computer's ability to multiprocess while also using up your battery life. I stand by what I said before - CDNs are a hack (basically a hand-rolled, rudimentary distributed system) to give you some extra download speed. They don't solve the problems of download size and resource usage.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> It does, because the definition of bloatness depends on the network speed. No, it doesn't. It depends on the proportion of actual content to the unnecessary cruft. The difference is that what a Singaporean considers bloat might prevent someone in Jakarta from accessing the site at all. > That's completely wrong. Today, the vast majority of internet traffic is served from CDNs, CDNs (and their placements) are critical for the internet as we know it. That is if you include streaming video, which is off-topic for this discussion. Imagine a perfect world with the ultimate CDN solution - something like IPFS, which ensures everyone is a CDN to everyone else (instead of wasting bandwidth with multiple downloads of the same content). The concept of bloat wouldn't disappear in such a world, because bloated websites will still require you to download unnecessary amount of data to your machine, and will reduce your computer's ability to multiprocess while also using up your battery life. I stand by what I said before - CDNs are a hack (basically a hand-rolled, rudimentary distributed system) to give you some extra download speed. They don't solve the problems of download size and resource usage.