This play on words is a pretty okay joke.
I feel obliged to create an alternative approach, Transport Indicated Termination of Session.
Every organization would have to say to itself, "Option 1 or option 2"
HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
51–60 of 89 posts
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#52Earlier 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.
Give me humanity and a sense of humor over PC-"professionalism" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#53Oh dear, how did I miss HTTP 2.0? And why are they trying to reimplement TCP exactly?
HTTP's simplicity is the reason it's been so successful and proved so flexible. Please don't throw it away.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#54Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#55Earlier 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.
My girlfriend calls me babe all the time, and I don't think she is being sexist about it.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#56The complexity difference between HTTP1 and HTTP2 is pretty huge. Not sure if they're even remotely the same protocol anymore.
The old Unix model (simple, do one thing, text formats, etc.) is dead. The world has come to prefer code and protocols which perform well at scale.
Let's not pretend that HTTP 1.1 was simple.
Text formats break down whenever they need to contain arbitrary (possible non-text) data.
You get one of:
* complex escaping rules (and assorted inefficiencies)
* non-text portions embedded within the text protocol (ever tried to parse HTTP with a Java InputStreamReader? you can't properly switch back to binary mode at the end of the headers...)
* variable end-of-content markers that cannot occur in the content
Of course, HTTP 1.x uses ALL of the above (see possible values for Transfer-Encoding). It's a horribly complicated mess that is only surpassed by MIME email.
Binary protocols usually just specify the length of the data, followed by a binary blob with the data. MUCH simpler!
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#57Earlier 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.
But that's the thing...it's _not_ a communication's protocol. It's a transfer protocol...
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#58I don't think profanity has a place in network protocols.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the semantics of 1.1 and 2.0 are the same (besides push) you can choose which encoding you prefer based on your requirements and constraints. In fact, maybe we should rename HTTP/1.1 to "HTTP/2.0 Textual Encoding" or something so that people can feel like they're not missing out on anything. It worked for USB 2.0.
Or we can call SPDY^WHTTP 2.0 "binary barf kitchensink internet multiplex protocol" instead. Let's not taint good, old HTTP in the process please.
I've never understood this sentiment. Its not like we can know what is passing through the boxes by watching the blinkenlights - this isn't paper tape anymore.
You have to use tcpdump to break up the binary bits - and since its likely encrypted, set up the appropriate certificates if you want to decipher arbitrary traffic anyway.
If its your own app, you know what requests are going where and can hex dump them any way you choose.
The whole "its binary so its bad" thing is a complete non-issue. I've heard people complaining "netcat doesn't work anymore" but there's no reason why netcat2 can't be used to talk to arbitrary HTTP/2.0 endpoints.
Sorry, I lost some mates in the SOAP wars of the late 90s and I'm still bitter.
Re: HTTP 2.0: GTFO (General Termination of Future Operations)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 com…
The thing with calling someone "babe" is that it's too... forward? It's something that you call people you already know, so saying "babe" to a stranger is presumptuous. Anything in that category would have the same effect I think: honey, sweetheart.
It's also possible to use it in a belittling way, but I can't think of any synonym for "woman" which couldn't, if you use the right tone of voice. That's just general sexism, and the word "babe" wouldn't be worse than "lady" with the same delivery.
If you're talking about something that's not in those two categories, could you like me to it so I can see what you're talking about?