←back to thread

306 points carlos-menezes | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.7s | source
Show context
Tempest1981 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
bawolff ◴[] 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 #
lysace ◴[] 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 #
ratorx ◴[] 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 #
1. ratorx ◴[] No.41891648[source]
How does this have any relevance to my comment?
replies(1): >>41891655 #
2. lysace ◴[] No.41891655[source]
How does your comment have any relevance to what we are discussing throughout this thread?