On Monday 05 Aug 2013 01:43:36 Robert Hailey wrote: > > On 2013/08/04 (Aug), at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > ...the user sees a longish page full of tiny images. So they conclude that > > Freenet is hideously slow. > > Well... *IS* freenet (at large) hideously slow, or is it only initially > hideously slow?
No, activelinks make their initial impression significantly worse than it should be. They expect that it's just loading the page, with a little HTML and a bunch of small images. Which should be a relatively small amount of data - intuitively it should load quickly. What actually happens is it loads tens to hundreds of MB of site containers, and this takes ages. > > > Do we need Freenet-level support for [slow-loading images]? > > As you have already indicated, this can be seen as a work around for poor > performance. No. This is about *doing too much work* before rendering the page for the user. > > If there is a chance that we will soon find a magic bullet wrt performance, > then this is simply a stop-gap measure. > > If, on the otherhand, performance remains flat... then this feature is > greatly needed, and not only not for onboarding and active links! I have seen > those who are just moderately frustrated with slowness try opening a bunch of > tabs & windows (trying to combat it), and one page of images gobbles up all > the parallel connections the browser will allow to the same host.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
