Bits or GTFO
HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
41–50 of 89 posts
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you're overreacting. Babe is an endearing term. It's sexist only in the sense that it identifies the gender of the subject of endearment.
> Babe is an endearing term. No it’s not. It’s only claimed to be by the users for plausible deniability, which actually makes it extra-bad. > Yes, you're overreacting. No, they’re not. But the three people jumping out and screaming „overreacting” and „endearing” probably are panicking.
I agree that cafe babe is sexist (like 'booth babe'). The word babe itself is completely endearing though - my SO and I call one another that all the time.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#43The complexity difference between HTTP1 and HTTP2 is pretty huge. Not sure if they're even remotely the same protocol anymore.
Agreed. This spec reads more like a brand new and complex transport protocol than an application one. Is it HTTP 2.0's plan to completely replace "middleware" like SPDY with a full featured protocol?
HTTP 2.0 started with the SPDY spec and has been smoothed and refined during the IETF process, so yeah, it is planned to completely replace SPDY.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Babe is an endearing term. No it’s not. It’s only claimed to be by the users for plausible deniability, which actually makes it extra-bad. > Yes, you're overreacting. No, they’re not. But the three people jumping out and screaming „overreacting” and „endearing” probably are panicking.
I agree that cafe babe is sexist (like 'booth babe'). The word babe itself is completely endearing though - my SO and I call one another that all the time.
Quite a few black people use the term „nigger” between themselves, and I know at least one couple that adopted „asshole” as an affectionate term. Not to mention completely ridiculous yet popular terms like „pumpkin”.
Just because some people adopted the word in some narrow context doesn’t change its meaning outside of it. There’s many behaviors that are common and acceptable towards your significant other and yet completely demeaning when applied to a barista (that doesn’t happen to be your significant other). So, whatever people call each other while watching Star Wars reruns is utterly irrelevant here.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
0xCAFEBABE is (I can't believe I'm going to do this) vaguely sexist though, so the cringe for me, at least, is thinking about my daughter reading that and thinking her father came up with it, and thus believing "BABE" is the kind of phrase dad would use to describe women in general. Or maybe I'm over-reacting. No idea.
Actually CAFE is the sexist part, given how it's the choice of drink for macho herd-rearing cowboys who famously see women as little more than trophies. And really, 0 is obviously a vagina, while x is a symbol for a butthole. 0xCAFE then, is two cowboys gangraping a barmaid. BABE is really the least sexist part of that signature.
Assuming it's sexist is sexist, babe is a gender neutral term of endearment.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#46For people interested in a high-level overview of HTTP 2.0 and why an update to HTTP 1.1 is needed, the chair of the relevant IETF working group gave a talk a couple of weeks ago at linux.conf.au called "HTTP 2.0 And You":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiWEu6f65VERe: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#47This play on words is a pretty okay joke.
I feel obliged to create an alternative approach, Transport Indicated Termination of Session.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm cringing currently. It seems funny now, but in ten years, it'll be as funny as a Java class file's header being 0xCAFEBABE is.
I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…
GTFO and ENHANCE_YOUR_CALM are symptoms of an unprofessional design process. It's not bad that a core standard be plain and functional, in fact it's a sign that the people designing it did so with the seriousness it deserves.
If the http wg actually listened to PHK there would be some hope for it not to end up with the complicated garbage that it is now, but they don't.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. This spec reads more like a brand new and complex transport protocol than an application one. Is it HTTP 2.0's plan to completely replace "middleware" like SPDY with a full featured protocol?
The complexity is not horrible as far as communications protocols go. Anyone know what working implementations exist currently? Ideally, it'd be nice to see actual real world data showing the benefits over http 1.1.
There's a C++ implementation here, but I'm not sure how complete it is: https://github.com/http2d/core
I think nginx and Chrome support SPDY which HTTP 2.0 was based on, so that performance should be able to be tested and be fairly representative of what we can expect.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd much rather have a joke that doesn't age well than a completely wit-less corporate committee specification. 0xCAFEBABE isn't laugh-out-loud funny (not sure it ever was), but I find it a comforting reminder that Java was actually written by humans. The "Duke" mascot, too. It's not at all hard to imagine an underemployed middle manager learning about it and demanding it being changed, in fear that the Important and…
GTFO and ENHANCE_YOUR_CALM are symptoms of an unprofessional design process. It's not bad that a core standard be plain and functional, in fact it's a sign that the people designing it did so with the seriousness it deserves. If the http wg actually listened to PHK there would be some hope for it not to end up with the complicated garbage that it is now, but they don't.
> GTFO and ENHANCE_YOUR_CALM are symptoms of an unprofessional design process.
I'd chose "having sense of humour" over "professional" every day.
> it's a sign that the people designing it did so with the seriousness it deserves.
Or it's a sign that the people designing it are too serious, focusing on political correctness and not on doing good engineering. Creativity, care about the product and sense of humour often go together.