6 ms·

Having read through that thread, most of the (top) comments are somewhat related to the lacking performance of the UDP/QUIC stack and thoughts on the meaningful

by ratorx 2y ago

Having read through that thread, most of the (top) comments are somewhat related to the lacking performance of the UDP/QUIC stack and thoughts on the meaningfulness of the speeds in the test. There is a single comment suggesting HTTP/2 was rushed (because server push was later deprecated). QUIC is also acknowledged as being quite different from the Google version, and incorporating input from many different people. Could you expand more on why this seems like evidence that Google unilaterally dictating bad standards? None of the changes in protocol seem objectively wrong (except possibly Server Push). Disclaimer: Work at Google on networking, but unrelated to QUIC and other protocol level stuff.

lysace 2y ago
> Could you expand more on why this seems like evidence that Google unilaterally dictating bad standards? I guess I'm just generally disgusted in the way Google is poisoning the web in the worst way possible: By pushing ever more complex standards. Imagine the complexity of the web stack in 2050 if we continue to let Google run things. It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level. In short: it's not you, it's your manager's manager's manager's manager's strategy that is messed up.
- bawolff 2y ago
  > It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level. It literally is not.
  - lysace 2y ago
    Because? Edit: I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Witness the Chrome section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish#Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Well it may be possible to make the comparison in other things google does (they have done a lot of things) it makes no sense for quic/http3. What are they extending in this analogy? Http3 is not an extension of http. What are they extinguishing? There is no plan to get rid of http1/2, since you still need it in lots of networks that dont allow udp. Additionally, its an open standard, with an rfc, and multiple competing implementations (including firefox and i believe experimental in safari). The entire point of embrace, extend, extinguish is that the extension is not well specified making it dufficult for competitors to implement. That is simply not what is happening here.
      - lysace 2y ago
        What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium: They have several thousand C++ browser engineers (and as many web standards people as they could get their hands on, early on). Combined with a dominant browser market share, this has let them dominate browser standards, and even internet protocols. They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. It's quite clever.
        jauntywundrkind 2y ago
        Microsoft just did shit, whatever they wanted. Google has worked with all the w3c committees and other browsers with tireless commitment to participation, with endless review. It's such a tired sad trope of people disaffected with the web because they can't implement it by themselves easily. I'm so exhausted by this anti-progress terrorism; the world's shared hypermedia should be rich and capable. We also see lots of strong progress these days from newcomers like Ladybird, and Servo seems gearing up to be more browser like.
        lysace 2y ago
        Yes, Google found the loophole: brute-force standards complexity by hiring thousands of very competent engineers eager to leave their mark on the web and eager to get promoted. The only thing they needed was lots of money, and they had just that. I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex.
- ratorx 2y ago
  This is making a pretty big assumption that the web is perfectly fine the way it is and never needs to change. In reality, there are perfectly valid reasons that motivate QUIC and HTTP/2 and I don’t think there is a reasonable argument that they are objectively bad. Now, for your personal use case, it might not be worth it, but that’s a different argument. The standards are built for the majority. All systems have tradeoffs. Increased complexity is undesirable, but whether it is bad or not depends on the benefits. Just blanket making a statement that increasing complexity is bad, and the runaway effects of that in 2050 would be worse does not seem particularly useful.
  - lysace 2y ago
    Nothing is perfect. But gigantic big bang changes (like from HTTP 1.1 to 2.0) enforced by a browser mono culture and a dominant company with several thousands of individually well-meaning Chromium software engineers like yourself - yeah, pretty sure that's bad.
    - jsnell 2y ago
      Except that HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2 was not a big bang change on the ecosystem level. No server or browser was forced to implement HTTP/2 to remain interoperable[0]. I bet you can't point any of this "enforcement" you claim happened. If other browser implemented HTTP/2, it was because they thought that the benefits of H2 outweighed any downsides. [0] There are non-browser protocols that are based on H2 only, but since your complaint was explicitly about browsers, I know that's not what you had in mind.
      - lysace 2y ago
        You are missing the entire point: Complexity. It's not your fault, in case you were working on this. It was likely the result a strategy thing being decided at Google/Alphabet exec level. Several thousand very competent C++ software engineers don't come cheap.
        jsnell 2y ago
- yunohn 2y ago
  This is one of those HN buzzword medley comments that has only rant, no substance. - MS embrace extend extinguish - Google is making the world complex - Nth level manager is messed up None of the above was connected to deliver a clear point, just thrusted into the comment to sound profound.

by ratorx 2y ago

lysace 2y ago

> Could you expand more on why this seems like evidence that Google unilaterally dictating bad standards? I guess I'm just generally disgusted in the way Google is poisoning the web in the worst way possible: By pushing ever more complex standards. Imagine the complexity of the web stack in 2050 if we continue to let Google run things. It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level. In short: it's not you, it's your manager's manager's manager's manager's strategy that is messed up.

bawolff 2y ago
> It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level. It literally is not.
- lysace 2y ago
  Because? Edit: I'm not the first person to make this comparison. Witness the Chrome section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish#Google_Chrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Well it may be possible to make the comparison in other things google does (they have done a lot of things) it makes no sense for quic/http3. What are they extending in this analogy? Http3 is not an extension of http. What are they extinguishing? There is no plan to get rid of http1/2, since you still need it in lots of networks that dont allow udp. Additionally, its an open standard, with an rfc, and multiple competing implementations (including firefox and i believe experimental in safari). The entire point of embrace, extend, extinguish is that the extension is not well specified making it dufficult for competitors to implement. That is simply not what is happening here.
    - lysace 2y ago
      What I meant with Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish (EEE) scheme taken to the next level is what Google has done to the web via Chromium: They have several thousand C++ browser engineers (and as many web standards people as they could get their hands on, early on). Combined with a dominant browser market share, this has let them dominate browser standards, and even internet protocols. They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla. It's quite clever.
      - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
        Microsoft just did shit, whatever they wanted. Google has worked with all the w3c committees and other browsers with tireless commitment to participation, with endless review. It's such a tired sad trope of people disaffected with the web because they can't implement it by themselves easily. I'm so exhausted by this anti-progress terrorism; the world's shared hypermedia should be rich and capable. We also see lots of strong progress these days from newcomers like Ladybird, and Servo seems gearing up to be more browser like.
        lysace 2y ago
        Yes, Google found the loophole: brute-force standards complexity by hiring thousands of very competent engineers eager to leave their mark on the web and eager to get promoted. The only thing they needed was lots of money, and they had just that. I think my message here is only hard to understand if your salary (or personal worth etc) depends on not understanding it. It's really not that complex.
ratorx 2y ago
This is making a pretty big assumption that the web is perfectly fine the way it is and never needs to change. In reality, there are perfectly valid reasons that motivate QUIC and HTTP/2 and I don’t think there is a reasonable argument that they are objectively bad. Now, for your personal use case, it might not be worth it, but that’s a different argument. The standards are built for the majority. All systems have tradeoffs. Increased complexity is undesirable, but whether it is bad or not depends on the benefits. Just blanket making a statement that increasing complexity is bad, and the runaway effects of that in 2050 would be worse does not seem particularly useful.
- lysace 2y ago
  Nothing is perfect. But gigantic big bang changes (like from HTTP 1.1 to 2.0) enforced by a browser mono culture and a dominant company with several thousands of individually well-meaning Chromium software engineers like yourself - yeah, pretty sure that's bad.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    Except that HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2 was not a big bang change on the ecosystem level. No server or browser was forced to implement HTTP/2 to remain interoperable[0]. I bet you can't point any of this "enforcement" you claim happened. If other browser implemented HTTP/2, it was because they thought that the benefits of H2 outweighed any downsides. [0] There are non-browser protocols that are based on H2 only, but since your complaint was explicitly about browsers, I know that's not what you had in mind.
    - lysace 2y ago
      You are missing the entire point: Complexity. It's not your fault, in case you were working on this. It was likely the result a strategy thing being decided at Google/Alphabet exec level. Several thousand very competent C++ software engineers don't come cheap.
      - jsnell 2y ago
yunohn 2y ago
This is one of those HN buzzword medley comments that has only rant, no substance. - MS embrace extend extinguish - Google is making the world complex - Nth level manager is messed up None of the above was connected to deliver a clear point, just thrusted into the comment to sound profound.