What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
165 Comments
- samby, on 11/16/2009, -6/+245They didn't say a 50% increase in speed. They said a 55% improvement in load time.
Say it takes one minute to load. A 10% improvement in load time would cut off 6 seconds (6 is 10% of 60), so it would take 54 seconds. Likewise, a 55% improvement in load time would take off 33 seconds, resulting in a 27 second load time, effectively more than doubling the load speed. - brainiac8008, on 11/15/2009, -38/+174This sounds cool, but a 50% increase in speed is not the same as doubling load speeds.
- drmangrum, on 11/16/2009, -12/+128If the protocol remains open to all, I'm for it. If it becomes a cash-cow for Google and effectively gives them full control of the internet, not so much. I would rather deal with slower websites than having ads pop up everywhere.
- evanfrey, on 11/16/2009, -9/+112FTA "The browser wars may give way to the protocol wars, which could lead to a much faster and more flexible Internet -- a boon for all of us."
Or (more likely) 5 different protocols each with a specific browser to access each of them. What a nightmare. - Phatlip012, on 11/16/2009, -2/+75Google having "complete control" and being closed isn't how Google does things. I'm willing to bet money that it will be open.
- ssttuu, on 11/16/2009, -7/+78You've noticed relevant ad's in your GMail, my god. You might have discovered what there business model is... relevant ads /s
- graywolfz10, on 11/16/2009, -1/+63Cause he looks like harry potter...
- subratabera, on 11/15/2009, -3/+51Anything which speeds things up is welcome.
- darkstar949, on 11/16/2009, -1/+47Most likely they would just be written into the browser, in much the same way that most modern browsers support HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP. For browsers that support plug-ins it likely wouldn't be too hard to write a plug into support the protocol.
- marciot, on 11/16/2009, -0/+32Let me sell you this special potion which speeds up the aging process... you'll be 70 by Friday.
- cstaylor, on 11/16/2009, -1/+33"Of course, there are problems. Sites will have to switch to this new protocol from HTTP -- not an easy task -- and browsers will have to support it. Until that happens, no Web sites will be jumping in and risk alienating non-Chrome-using customers."
They won't have to. If you have an existing HTTP site, it's still gonna work on chrome and every other browser and OS. However, if someone is creating applications for this new Chrome OS, then I would assume they would prefer to use SPDY. If other browsers adapt SPDY, then they will simply gain the ability to use these new applications. SPDY isn't replacing HTTP, it's adding to it. And if it does end up replacing it someday, then great. - rahga, on 11/16/2009, -1/+29Of course, the article is useless because it assumes that sites would alienate users if they switch to SPDY from HTTP, ignoring the reality that should it ever mature, SPDY would just be a feature used by Apache and IIS whenever the client support it, just as it was with HTTP compression.
- sneakyness, on 11/16/2009, -4/+32This isn't going to change anything, just so you know.
- noahgelman, on 11/16/2009, -1/+24That's what she said?
- ethos101, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2355% improvement is more than doubling load speeds.
- demodawid, on 11/16/2009, -0/+21WOOOOSH!
- Bicep, on 11/16/2009, -0/+21Scrutinize Google to every word - always! That's the best way to keep them (or anyone like them) clean. Also, provide clean competition. But also, Google does stuff more like it should be done: Open and Interoperable from the start. This is what will reign all in this day of technological advancement. Get the source code for SPDY here: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/ne ...
- samby, on 11/16/2009, -0/+19The server will have to understand SPDY as well, much as servers today talk in HTTP.
Fortunately the routers shouldn't have to change as long as they still use IP as the networking protocol. Thank goodness for layering! - L0NER, on 11/16/2009, -4/+22Us needs faster upload speeds.
Cloud storage would be viable then - SkinnerBox, on 11/16/2009, -2/+20I've also noticed that gmail displays the COMPLETE TEXT of my emails, right there on the screen! Someone needs to stop this monstrosity before they use my bizarre internet porn fetishes against me!
- sneakyness, on 11/16/2009, -4/+21Be careful what you wish for.
- proverbs17, on 11/16/2009, -3/+18Why wouldn't we want things faster?
- iPoul, on 11/16/2009, -0/+15i heard google were making their own hadron collider ...
- TheObviousChild, on 11/16/2009, -0/+12Does it involve watching Sean Hannity?
- marciot, on 11/16/2009, -2/+14Neither. My insider sources state it is SPoonman-is-reaDY.
- AlyxVance, on 11/16/2009, -1/+13"This will of course set off alarms at Microsoft, which would not be happy with Google owning the protocol through which all Web sites are transmitted."
I have a feeling something like this would have to be open source, and set some standard before becoming widely accepted. Otherwise if google is the sole SPDY developer for the transfer protocol of all website, say hello to anti-trust lawsuits. - HonoredMule, on 11/16/2009, -0/+11The issue at stake is the cost of negotiating a large number of tiny transfers with more dynamic, interactive programs.
- grexeo, on 11/16/2009, -1/+11Not sure why you're getting dugg down, you've got a valid point.
- Phatlip012, on 11/16/2009, -1/+11And it's all free and open. I don't see the problem. Google's goal is to improve the internet, to make it as enjoyable as possible.
Yes they're a company and yes, they want to make money. But they don't do so by nickel and dimming people or by creating closed technology which Google holds full control of. Google is an advertising company. So their idea is the better the internet is, the more time people will spend on it. The more time spent on the internet is the more likely people are going to click Google ads. - rahga, on 11/16/2009, -3/+13I hate defending Google, but if this makes using the internet a better experience for everybody, the headaches that are saved will pay for themselves even if they gain no competitive advantage. Just imagine how much better gMail could be if scattershot loading of various components was no longer mandatory, no more wasting of programmers time in trying to streamline an application built on a protocol that was never meant to serve more than one request at a time.
- loconet, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10as long it's a well documented open standard that Google alone doesn't control and anyone is free to implement for profit or not...
- ldog, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10maybe that's one of the reasons they're doing this.
- OverDriven, on 11/16/2009, -0/+9It is ALWAYS wise to be wary of such enormously powerful corporations, regardless of what their current intentions may seem to be. If Google evaporated tomorrow, what would happen? Well, it would have quite an impact, whether you like to admit it or not.
Your only real alternative to sort through the mountains of ***** on the internet would be Bing, and most agree that it doesn't compare to google. The vast majority of web sites would lose their free analytics solution, and would have to pay to have such a robust platform (though even pay solutions don't really compare). Hundreds of thousands of email accounts would disappear. One of the most popular resources on the internet, YouTube, would disappear. As most devs know, Google is a huge source of traffic to sites. Traffic to almost every site in existence would be drastically cut. This would result in massive revenue loss. Combine this with the loss of one of the best advertising vehicles out there (AdWords), and it's likely that many small businesses could cease to exist due to lack of traffic. Sites all over the internet that rely on the Google Maps API (as well as some cell phones) would be instantly broken. This is only the beginning. If you start to consider the vast number of applications that Google offers and how incredibly ingrained in the internet infrastructure they have become, it is a bit scary. Why? Because there IS someone out there who is capable of making that happen. You just have to trust them not to.
Google's current owners seem to be all about providing easy access to information at basically no cost. What happens when they are eventually replaced? When the original ethics are no longer taken into consideration? What happens when someone who has become head of the corporation realizes that they are SO ingrained that they can charge for their services and you will HAVE to pay because they have become an integral part of the infrastructure? Can you imagine the power of owning the protocol that most of the internet is transmitted through (assuming this protocol is widely adopted)? It is unimaginable.
Anyone who doesn't question such things is a complete fool who is living with blinders on. It is one thing to be paranoid. It is quite another to watch your back. - bbqribs, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10Want to 'double web speeds?'
Eliminate FLASH and advertisements. Poof. Back to the way things were - they loaded fast. Nothing like trying to load a web site and having it hang there with "Waiting for adserver75.ads.adnetwork.com" or having a Flash video advertisement load. Really. Crap like that is what's slowed everything down.
Adblock & flashblock sure do help, though. - samby, on 11/16/2009, -1/+10FTA:
Without getting too technical, SPDY is able to handle multiple streams of data at once and prioritize on the fly.
SPDY also compresses request and response data (which asks for specific content and tells a browser what to display) so that multiple requests can be sent at once using less bandwidth.
HTTP already supports pipelining (keeping the socket open and sending out multiple GETs without waiting for a response, e.g. for images on the web page) and compression. So what is new here? Probably something, but the article doesn't say what. - Atario, on 11/17/2009, -0/+8They're proposing it as a new protocol standard. That is pretty much the definition of not having control.
- elduquex26x, on 11/16/2009, -0/+8FTA: So Google is developing a new protocol, dubbed SPDY (pronounced speedy)
- ozroy, on 11/16/2009, -1/+9It is not illegal to be a monopoly. Lots of businesses are. It is illegal to abuse a monopoly position and to use it to harm your competition.
- SteveMax, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Hey, it's like the Gmail beta launch all over again!
- Vapor17, on 11/16/2009, -4/+11Because who really wants to hear about products that might interest them?
- mcprogrammer, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7How is it linux based? The point of an open protocol like HTTP or SPDY (when/if it ever gets adopted) is that it's not based on any platform. Their current implementation might be using linux, but I don't see how that's relevant.
- shinkou, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7I wonder where the RFCs are.
- Steeple, on 11/16/2009, -1/+8everyone's email is read and checked for spam by keyword search anyway, by any number of checkpoints from sender to recipient.
- bonofosho, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6I do too... But I read your post in a robot like voice in my head...
creepy. - picsectionpleez, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6Exactly.
- Atomic8086, on 11/16/2009, -0/+6There is no reason why a webserver can't support both at the same time, its not like you have to choose between http and https. This can be just another protocol that's supported by webservers. The same page could be viewed over http, https, or spdy and the browser can choose what it supports. Its about time we got a protocol with compression built in. Processing power is growing faster than bandwidth, its about time we started using it.
- proverbs17, on 11/16/2009, -1/+6They haven't yet, so maybe they won't. Google gives a lot away for free, and we should be great full to them.
On the other hand, they still could turn evil, so we need to keep a close eye on them..... - kingfoot, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5because most the time, it takes a lot longer for girls.
- Bicep, on 11/16/2009, -0/+5We should scrutinize everything they do and make them stick to their word of Openness and Interoperability. Let's do it right this time, we don't want to have another Redmond.
- thcobbs, on 11/16/2009, -8/+13And to follow up what sneakyness said...
You'll be installing a data-miner for an OS, just so you know. -
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is