11–20 of 30 posts
Is this a mistake or Google trying to force the standards process in their favour? Users seem to be blaming Firefox, not Google.
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.
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 annoying things like feedback from others and standards-committees and such.
They will probably win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When I asked my 11-year-old brother what browser he used (since I saw chrome and firefox on the desktop), he informed me that he used "Firefox Nightly" (which I hadn't noticed, but was also present), because "it's a little better". He had no idea what it was. I don't know how he found it in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When I asked my 11-year-old brother what browser he used (since I saw chrome and firefox on the desktop), he informed me that he used "Firefox Nightly" (which I hadn't noticed, but was also present), because "it's a little better". He had no idea what it was. I don't know how he found it in the first place.
4chan, directly or indirectly. They have some crazy obsession with it.
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.
This will simply boil down to someone not fully testing the implementation, especially since it's an extra, not a base feature. If this was an issue with Firefox stable, it would be more pronounced and worrying.
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.
Was it typical behavior of SPDY before to block the connection unless it could pass cookies through? If not, then it definitely feels like Google is trying to force cookie-usage through the protocol, and by shipping it like this, it forces browser vendors to adopt it as-is.
This whole thread is just full of some weird anti-Google paranoia way beyond any healthy level of scepticism.
http://spdycheck.org/#google.com
From the list of protocols:
Success! SPDY is Enabled! Hurray, this website is using SPDY! The following protocols are supported:
spdy/5a1 h2-14 spdy/3.1 spdy/3 http/1.1