6 ms·
Er, I thought I was agreeing with you. What do you think I'm arguing? To be clear, I view these two statements as grounded in the same logic, although perhaps o
by hobohacker 13y ago
Er, I thought I was agreeing with you. What do you think I'm arguing? To be clear, I view these two statements as grounded in the same logic, although perhaps one is more strongly worded than the other:
Yours - "So unless someone has the resources to test and deploy unstable web servers, it effectively means you shouldn't bother with spdy at this point."
Mine - "I think it's a fair assessment that supporting experimental technologies requires more engineering resources. Everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis themselves."
- wbond 13y agoLet me rephrase then: Don't even bother building nginx 1.4 with spdy support or configuring it since no one can use it. From May 2013 until now there was a benefit to end-users. There no longer is. If you want to provide the speed benefits of spdy to users, you now need to run unstable nginx or mod_spdy.
- unethical_ban 13y agoRight. I think the point is that you shouldn't be relying on experimental standards for one's web architecture unless you recognize its experimental status.
- benjamincburns 13y agoAs an outside observer, it seems like this kind of pattern happens pretty regularly on HN. It's always kind of funny. There seems to be two distinct flavors: Pattern 1: > Statement >> Counterstatement! >>> You're saying the same thing. >>>> I am? Oh. I *am*. Whoops! Pattern 2: > Statement >> Agree with tone of disagreement. >>> Disagree on disagreement, while offering up facts to somehow agree *harder* >>>> Rebuttal, optional restatement of disagreement, optional statement(s) further >>>> reinforcing the common point on which we just can't agree to agree