Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 08:17:43AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
[...]
> 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?
>
> [0] There are frames (now deprecated) and iframes, but they only get you so
> far. And each (i)frame must be a complete html page.
This is the theory, yes. In practice, here's one example: my browser takes
roughly 12sec to "boot" our company chat app (a stripe.js monster, AFAICS).
All that to ask me whether I want to download their "native" [1] app or
"view" the thing in the browser. When I opt for the browser it continues
"booting" for a few secs.
So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework
schtack [2] on you.
Cheers
[1] An electron app. Yeah, right.
[2] A pun, not a typo.
--
t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Reply to:
- References:
- 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>