RE: ftp: no longer supported by Chome?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/