W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 11:05:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CABirCh9_1B3gUt++o=u=YqHS8YX23sZamsR9_kZ5s6P_MFFQoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Joe Gregorio <jcgregorio@google.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, João Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:

> I've updated the spec proposal [1] to sanction reporting fewer than the
> actual number of logical cores as a fingerprinting mitigation.


The spec should allow the UA to do this (the "real" value isn't
script-visible, so it can't really prohibit it), but it shouldn't recommend
effectively limiting high-end machines.  This also shouldn't be confused to
be a solution for fingerprinting.  It would still be another axis to
segment average users on.

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM, David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote:

> The algorithms don't have to run as fast as possible, they only have to
> run fast enough that the system is responsive to the user.  If there is
> a motion graphic, you need to run the algorithm fast enough that the
> motion isn't choppy.


That's not correct.  For image processing and compression, you want to use
as many cores as you can so the operation completes more quickly.  For the
rest, using more cores means that the algorithm can do a better job, giving
a more accurate physics simulation, detecting motion more quickly and
accurately, and so on.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 16:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:20 UTC