Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTTP/2 interop pains

daniel.haxx.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#21

Post by dmm »

josteink wrote: post #13
skrebbel wrote: post #2

Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.

> Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google. Given Google's history around this whole HTTP/2.0 shenanigans, I see little reason to see anything in their favour. They are probably gambling that Firefox will fold (like they forced them to with DRM) so that once again, they can have it their way internet-wide without having to wait for…

Google directly funds the Mozilla foundation with about 300 million USD per year. If Google wanted to see firefox fall they have a very direct way of achieving it.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#22

Post by plantain »

skrebbel wrote: post #2

Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.

"The Firefox Nightly and beta versions have HTTP2" Seems an extremely long bow to draw when it is only affecting a tiny group of beta/nightly testers...

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#23

Post by annnnd »

dmm wrote: post #21
josteink wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google. Given Google's history around this whole HTTP/2.0 shenanigans, I see little reason to see anything in their favour. They are probably gambling that Firefox will fold (like they forced them to with DRM) so that once again, they can have it their way internet-wide without having to wait for…

Google directly funds the Mozilla foundation with about 300 million USD per year. If Google wanted to see firefox fall they have a very direct way of achieving it.

Not true - they don't pay this money out of charity. I am guessing other companies with interest in having a leading search engine (MS and Yahoo primarily, but also Apple, Amazon,...) would probably be happy to take Google's place if they backed out (maybe not for the same amount though).

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#24

Post by cookiecaper »

annnnd wrote: post #23
dmm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google directly funds the Mozilla foundation with about 300 million USD per year. If Google wanted to see firefox fall they have a very direct way of achieving it.

Not true - they don't pay this money out of charity. I am guessing other companies with interest in having a leading search engine (MS and Yahoo primarily, but also Apple, Amazon,...) would probably be happy to take Google's place if they backed out (maybe not for the same amount though).

This could be seen as a technique to undermine Firefox and get more users to Chrome, which would devalue Firefox's contribution to Google. As Google appears to embrace standards but continues to implement little flaws and Chrome-only behaviors (that is, extend), they will eventually deplete Firefox's market share to the point where such a monetary transfer is no longer beneficial (extinguish).

People always bring up the fact that there is some value currently provided by Google's payment to Firefox like there's no problem with the vast majority of the Mozilla Foundation's funding coming from a competing entity. It's still a dangerous situation, even if Google is in a position where they're willing to continue paying the "default search engine" toll for the time being. Even their willingness to do that is compassionate, because we all know that Firefox would only harm itself by switching to another default search provider.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#25

Post by dcsommer »

skrebbel wrote: post #2

Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.

This is a ridiculous claim. The spec had continued to change and it is entirely understandable that there will be bugs. This is what interop testing is for. I've worked with the Google folks on the httpbis group and they are committed to the standards process.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#26

Post by snuxoll »

plantain wrote: post #22
skrebbel wrote: post #2

Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.

"The Firefox Nightly and beta versions have HTTP2" Seems an extremely long bow to draw when it is only affecting a tiny group of beta/nightly testers...

Beta is the next release, less than six weeks and ALL FF users will be affected unless Mozilla disables it.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#27

Post by comex »

josteink wrote: post #13
skrebbel wrote: post #2

Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.

> Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google. Given Google's history around this whole HTTP/2.0 shenanigans, I see little reason to see anything in their favour. They are probably gambling that Firefox will fold (like they forced them to with DRM) so that once again, they can have it their way internet-wide without having to wait for…

Oh, come on, this is a pure conspiracy theory with zero logic behind it. The difference in Google's implementation is something almost certainly too small for Google to care about one way or the other, and easily accounted for by someone forgetting to update a small part of the code from draft 13 to draft 14. There is no reason to believe Firefox would "fold", rather than waiting for Google to fix it, and disabling HTTP2 in the meantime [possibly only for Google] if it hasn't been fixed by the time the stable release is supposed to occur. And Google has, in fact, confirmed that they will fix it:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1059074#c22

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#28

Post by rockdoe »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #16
pedrox wrote: post #8

Does it work on Chrome (nightly or with that support enabled)? Does anybody disagree that this is a no brainer for Mozilla: they should work that around ASAP (with a HTTP/2 blacklist for example). The impact is so high and it affects too many users. Also note that Google in its deepest feelings wants FF down so this may by even intentional since people will always blame the client.

In no way does Google want Firefox down. Besides basically funding Firefox by sponsoring Mozilla, Chrome's official position is simply to drive forward web technology. The Chrome team may want to make their browser better than the competition, but they also want the competition to challenge, and help improve Chrome and the web. This will simply boil down to someone not fully testing the implementation, especially sin…

In no way does Google want Firefox down.

Of course they do. One less browser to support for all their properties, one annoying group in the standardization process less that keeps clamoring for annoying things like user privacy, proper spec documentation, independent implementations or god forbid, tried to oppose DRM.

If Google wouldn't want Firefox down, they wouldn't aggressively market Chrome on the search pages that Firefox users are served.

The "sponsoring" argument is totally lame. Google pays hard cash to shove their search machine down Firefox users' throat and collect the advertising dollars from it. That isn't charity.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#29

Post by rockdoe »

maaaats wrote: post #9
pedrox wrote: post #8

Does it work on Chrome (nightly or with that support enabled)? Does anybody disagree that this is a no brainer for Mozilla: they should work that around ASAP (with a HTTP/2 blacklist for example). The impact is so high and it affects too many users. Also note that Google in its deepest feelings wants FF down so this may by even intentional since people will always blame the client.

Why should Mozilla act? This only affects nightlies and beta, as the article stated. If you use one of those, you should expect things to occasionally not work.

Beta is the next release. It's about to ship in a week or so.

Re: HTTP/2 interop pains

#30

Post by annnnd »

cookiecaper wrote: post #24
annnnd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true - they don't pay this money out of charity. I am guessing other companies with interest in having a leading search engine (MS and Yahoo primarily, but also Apple, Amazon,...) would probably be happy to take Google's place if they backed out (maybe not for the same amount though).

This could be seen as a technique to undermine Firefox and get more users to Chrome, which would devalue Firefox's contribution to Google. As Google appears to embrace standards but continues to implement little flaws and Chrome-only behaviors (that is, extend ), they will eventually deplete Firefox's market share to the point where such a monetary transfer is no longer beneficial ( extinguish ). People always bring…

Agreed, most of your points are valid and it is a precarious position for Mozilla. I just disagreed with the notion that their funding could be cut off this easily - even if Google retracted I'm sure they could reach some agreement with Facebook for example.

I still hope Mozilla is investing the money wisely, because this arrangement is temporary in any case. And I'm hopeful that FirefoxOS takes off!

Post reply on HN