Most active commenters
  • lysace(6)
  • bawolff(4)
  • ratorx(3)

←back to thread

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet

(arxiv.org)
306 points carlos-menezes | 12 comments | 19 Oct 24 21:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.235s | source | bottom
Show context
Tempest1981 ◴[19 Oct 24 21:59 UTC] No.41891085[source]▶
From September:

QUIC is not quick enough over fast internet (acm.org)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484991 (327 comments)

replies(2): >>41891107 #>>41893876 #
lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 22:01 UTC] No.41891107[source]▶
My personal takeaway from that: Perhaps we shouldn't let Google design and more or less unilaterally dictate and enforce internet protocol usage via Chromium.

Brave/Vivaldi/Opera/etc: You should make a conscious choice.

replies(3): >>41891197 #>>41891355 #>>41891374 #
ratorx ◴[19 Oct 24 22:46 UTC] No.41891374[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41891400 #
lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 22:51 UTC] No.41891400[source]▶
> 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.

replies(3): >>41891503 #>>41891552 #>>41894048 #
1. bawolff ◴[19 Oct 24 23:07 UTC] No.41891503[source]▶
> It's Microsoft's old embrace-extend-and-extinguish scheme taken to the next level.

It literally is not.

replies(1): >>41891506 #
2. lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 23:08 UTC] No.41891506[source]▶
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_extinguis...

replies(2): >>41891571 #>>41891590 #
3. bawolff ◴[19 Oct 24 23:18 UTC] No.41891571[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41891709 #
4. ratorx ◴[19 Oct 24 23:21 UTC] No.41891590[source]▶
Contributing to an open standard seems to be the opposite of the classic example.

Assume that change X for the web is positive overall. Currently Google’s strategy is to implement in Chrome and collect data on usefulness, then propose a standard and have other people contribute to it.

That approach seems pretty optimal. How else would you do it?

replies(1): >>41891628 #
5. ratorx ◴[19 Oct 24 23:29 UTC] No.41891648{4}[source]▶
How does this have any relevance to my comment?
replies(1): >>41891655 #
6. lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 23:30 UTC] No.41891655{5}[source]▶
How does your comment have any relevance to what we are discussing throughout this thread?
7. lysace ◴[19 Oct 24 23:43 UTC] No.41891709{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>41891918 #>>41892178 #>>41893616 #
8. jauntywundrkind ◴[20 Oct 24 00:25 UTC] No.41891918{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41891955 #
9. lysace ◴[20 Oct 24 00:35 UTC] No.41891955{5}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41893552 #
10. Dylan16807 ◴[20 Oct 24 01:28 UTC] No.41892178{4}[source]▶
> 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

I think this argument is reasonable, but QUIC isn't part of the problem.

11. bawolff ◴[20 Oct 24 07:17 UTC] No.41893552{6}[source]▶
> 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.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they don't understand you.

However, if you think google is making standards unneccessarily complex, you should read some of the standards from the 2000s (e.g. SAML).

12. bawolff ◴[20 Oct 24 07:28 UTC] No.41893616{4}[source]▶
> They have abused this dominant position to eliminate all competitors except Apple and (so far) Mozilla.

But that's like all of them. Except edge but that was mostly dead before chrome came on the scene.

It seems like you are using embrace, extend, extinguish to just mean, "be succesful", but that's not what the term means. Being a market leader is not the same thing as embrace, extend, extinguish. Neither is putting competition out of business.