ftp: no longer supported by Chome? Was: Draft finding - "Transitioning the Web to HTTPS"

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
>