Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
> With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of
> a web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the
> client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network
> usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than necessary?
Indeed, early uses of client side (Javascript) processing really helped
make web sites more efficient: for the server, the client, and the
network in between.
And then web developers realized that a browser-with-Javascript is just
a sort of VM. So now we have "web applications" running in that VM,
where the backward/forward buttons make you leave/reenter the
application rather than move through past states of it, and you can't
use bookmarks to refer to the current state any more :-(
Stefan
Reply to:
- References:
- A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Paul Leiber <paul@onlineschubla.de>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: zithro <slack@rabbit.lu>
- Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Mario Marietto <marietto2008@gmail.com>
- A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com>
- Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>
- Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com>
- Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>
- Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?
- From: Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com>
- Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
- Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>
- Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
- Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com>
- Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>
- Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
- From: Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br>