Re: ftp: no longer supported by Chome?

Read what Eric wrote.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote:

>  And the transformation of the TAG list into a tech support forum for
> Chrome is complete. Well, we had a good run with web architecture, I
> suppose.
>
>
>
> *From:* Marc Fawzi [mailto:marc.fawzi@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 18:34
> *To:* Mark Nottingham
> *Cc:* Tim Berners-Lee; Eric J. Bowman; Chris Palmer; Noah Mendelsohn;
> Michael[tm] Smith; Henri Sivonen; Public TAG List
> *Subject:* Re: ftp: no longer supported by Chome?
>
>
>
> Doesn't work on Version 39.0.2171.95 (64-bit) for OS X Mavericks, and I
> believe that's the latest regular version of Chrome.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> Works for me (Chrome 35 and 42).
>
>
> > On 20 Jan 2015, at 10:28 pm, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed that if Chrome is quietly taking ftp: off the list, then that is
> a cause for this list's concern
> >
> > I suggest one change the subject in the hope that the thread fork will
> be managed by some mail readers.
> > (like e.g. above).
> >
> > timbl
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015-01 -20, at 02:25, Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Palmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NoSnooping.html
> >>>
> >>> """This takes a lot of server CPU cycles, making server farms more
> >>> expensive. It would slow the user's computer. It would effectively
> >>> slow down the whole net."""
> >>>
> >>> That was not true in 2009, and it's certainly not true now.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Show me any review of Celeron or Sempron server CPUs on tomshardware or
> >> anandtech which support your contention. I'm a dinosaur who'd rather
> >> purchase old systems vs. new CPUs in the $50-$60 range to handle way
> >> more unencrypted Web traffic, but I see TBL's point (then and now) vis-
> >> a-vis server farms. Especially when I look at "cloud" hosting rates
> >> nowadays -- at these prices I can't cost-justify retaining independence
> >> by running my own hardware, assuming ubiquitous HTTPS.
> >>
> >> User CPUs are now soldered on with integrated GPUs, but I think we can
> >> agree that's irrelevant to user-perceived performance nowadays, even
> >> back in 2009. Network slowdowns are ulikely, but more expensive server
> >> farms is spot-on from my POV.
> >>
> >> Please don't leave it to me, or TBL, to undertake the research showing
> >> how much of the Web is hosted on Celeron and Sempron processors, or
> >> shows how badly their performance degrades when handling HTTPS-centric
> >> loads. IMNSHO, claiming that even 5+ years ago this was a fallacy, puts
> >> the onus on you to back it up with verifiable numbers which discount
> >> what I've been reading on tomshardware, anandtech, etc. regarding CPU
> >> performance on Web workloads over that timeframe.
> >>
> >> Your arguments assume various processor enhancements which have yet to
> >> filter down, with no guarantee they will anytime soon; after this many
> >> years I'm not willing to bank on promises they will at the $50-$60 CPU
> >> cost driving the commodity webhosting/cloud industries. I'm also not
> >> willing to assume that budget hosting plays on Celeron and Sempron CPUs
> >> falls under the 80/20 Mendoza line.
> >>
> >> What I don't have, is the wherewithal to undertake such research
> >> myself. Had it occured to me, I'd certainly have collected an arsenal of
> >> bookmarks supporting my contention for the sake of future mailing-list
> >> discussions. My first multi-core CPU was what, 2002-ish? But just made
> >> it to Celeron last year? This tells me that optimizations for ubiquitous
> >> HTTPS are a ways off for budget server CPU purchasers, unless proven
> >> otherwise, based on experience.
> >>
> >> -Eric
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>