3 ms·

> Whilst it's possible you may be correct, I do have to point out you are, I believe, lecturing John Nagle, known for Nagle's algorithm, used in most TCP stacks

> Whilst it's possible you may be correct, I do have to point out you are, I believe, lecturing John Nagle, known for Nagle's algorithm, used in most TCP stacks in the world. Thank you for pointing that out. This thread alone is bound to become a meme.

wutwutwat 2y ago
[flagged]
- motorest 2y ago
  > I better go kill myself from this embarrassment so my family doesn't have to live with my shame! There's no need to go to extremes, no matter how embarrassing and notably laughable your comment was. I'd say enjoy your fame.
  - wutwutwat 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - KronisLV 2y ago
    > There's no need to go to extremes Agreed, honestly if an argument is made and it makes sense, it doesn't matter who is on the other side. > no matter how embarrassing and notably laughable your comment was. I wouldn't even call the original comment laughable, they had a point - if you are in control of significant parts of the overall solution, then you can most likely mitigate most of the issues. And, while not a best practice, there's nothing really preventing you from sneaking in the occasional keepalive type response in the stream of events, if you deem it necessary. The less of the infrastructure and application you control, the more likely the other issues are likely to pop up their heads. As usual, it depends on your circumstances and both the original comment and the response are valid in their own right. The "extreme" response was a bit more... I'm not sure, cringe? Oh well.
- moritonal 2y ago
  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to embarrass you. I only meant to point out that people would err on the side of John likely knowing what they were talking about, whilst you seem to confidently have some misunderstandings in your comment. For example, you said "Every timeout in every hop of the chain is within your control to configure", but I'm quite confident that the WiFi router my office uses doesn't respect timeouts correctly, nor does my Phone's ISP, or certain VPNs. Those "hops" in the network are not within my control at all.

wutwutwat 2y ago

[flagged]

motorest 2y ago
> I better go kill myself from this embarrassment so my family doesn't have to live with my shame! There's no need to go to extremes, no matter how embarrassing and notably laughable your comment was. I'd say enjoy your fame.
- wutwutwat 2y ago
  [flagged]
- KronisLV 2y ago
  > There's no need to go to extremes Agreed, honestly if an argument is made and it makes sense, it doesn't matter who is on the other side. > no matter how embarrassing and notably laughable your comment was. I wouldn't even call the original comment laughable, they had a point - if you are in control of significant parts of the overall solution, then you can most likely mitigate most of the issues. And, while not a best practice, there's nothing really preventing you from sneaking in the occasional keepalive type response in the stream of events, if you deem it necessary. The less of the infrastructure and application you control, the more likely the other issues are likely to pop up their heads. As usual, it depends on your circumstances and both the original comment and the response are valid in their own right. The "extreme" response was a bit more... I'm not sure, cringe? Oh well.
moritonal 2y ago
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to embarrass you. I only meant to point out that people would err on the side of John likely knowing what they were talking about, whilst you seem to confidently have some misunderstandings in your comment. For example, you said "Every timeout in every hop of the chain is within your control to configure", but I'm quite confident that the WiFi router my office uses doesn't respect timeouts correctly, nor does my Phone's ISP, or certain VPNs. Those "hops" in the network are not within my control at all.