3 ms·

> It's sad that we need this. No, it's not, multi-dimensional optimization and improvement-in-depth is good, actually. Look back at the small site hosted in B

> It's sad that we need this. No, it's not, multi-dimensional optimization and improvement-in-depth is good, actually. Look back at the small site hosted in Bangalore - That's an Indian version of me. A hacker whose projects can't run on self-hosted Wordpress, who only bought a VPS because their home ISP is not reliable. With HTTP/1, most of America can't load their site, it times out. With HTTP/2, it takes 2,500 ms. With HTTP/3, it takes 1,000. A _petty_ software upgrade allows this imagined Indian blogger to gain an audience on _another continent_ without buying more servers, without using a CDN, and without taking advertising deals to afford more stuff. You know 3 things I hate about the web? Advertisements, CDNs, and having to buy servers. I promise this is purely geographical, not political - How often do you connect to servers outside the USA and Europe? I mean trading packets with a computer. YouTube uploads don't count because they have a CDN. For me, the answer is "almost never". The Internet is supposed to be global, but computers are made of matter and occupy space, so connections to nearer servers are still better, and they always will be. But QUIC makes the far-away connections a little less bad. That is a good thing.

combyn8tor 5y ago
A CDN solves those issues and is significantly faster than HTTP3 in your use case... why the hate for them? The centralised aspect?
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  TCP head-of-line blocking is a huge problem. Almost nothing should use TCP. I am happy if people use CDNs but even happier if people use HTTP/3.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> With HTTP/1, most of America can't load their site, it times out. That shouldn't happen. Do you have a real site in mind there? > No, it's not, multi-dimensional optimization and improvement-in-depth is good, actually. That can be true at the same time as "it's sad that we need this"

combyn8tor 5y ago

A CDN solves those issues and is significantly faster than HTTP3 in your use case... why the hate for them? The centralised aspect?

anonymoushn 5y ago
TCP head-of-line blocking is a huge problem. Almost nothing should use TCP. I am happy if people use CDNs but even happier if people use HTTP/3.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> With HTTP/1, most of America can't load their site, it times out. That shouldn't happen. Do you have a real site in mind there? > No, it's not, multi-dimensional optimization and improvement-in-depth is good, actually. That can be true at the same time as "it's sad that we need this"