4 ms·

> Google, Wikipedia Caching Google makes no sense beyond some static resources. Wikipedia can be made available off-line, just not by using a man-in-the-middle

> Google, Wikipedia Caching Google makes no sense beyond some static resources. Wikipedia can be made available off-line, just not by using a man-in-the-middle server. This may make sense for a school with limited connectivity to do. > That’s great for modern browsers, but not everyone has the option to be modern. Sometimes they’re constrained by old operating systems to run older browsers, ones with no service-worker support: a lab full of Windows XP machines limited to IE8, for example. You don't have the option to run legacy browsers and expect everything to work. Just don't use a legacy proprietary OS if you want to go on-line with it. Either install a free (as in gratis, but libre makes sense too) operating system, pay for the windows upgrades, or scrap the computers.

mehrdadn 8y ago
> Caching Google makes no sense beyond some static resources. Really? So you cannot make any sense of the idea of caching, say, news articles? Blog posts? Software documentation? StackOverflow Qs/As? The cached pages are 100% useless in your mind?
- majewsky 8y ago
  All of those are not Google. OP was probably thinking of SERPs.
  - Freak_NL 8y ago
    Indeed.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    I think lack of sleep got the better of me there, sorry :\ but I still don't see what the issue with caching search engine results is. Why shouldn't result pages be cached? I would totally want to cache them locally when on such a high-latency connection, especially when I can expect similar queries (like in a classroom).