Follow

Interwebs hot take 

Maybe we wouldn't need CDNs with all the widespread downtime they cause if we didn't have so much JavaScript on websites inflating their page sizes 2-10x.

CDNs make the web faster by making sure a copy of the site is stored somewhere close to each user. But we can also make the web faster by just sending less data.

If CDNs were only used by sites that truly need them (e.g. streaming services), outages wouldn't bring so much of the web down.

· · Web · 3 · 7 · 13

Interwebs hot take 

@eishiya ah, for Krita we also need to implement aggresive caching and a CDN because our releases do push the whole KDE infrastructure to it's limits. So I think stuff like reddit and such are right in having those kinds of needs.

But, less javascript and less massive-ass sites are still a pretty good idea none-the-less, for more reasons than just the CDNs.

Interwebs hot take 

@eishiya counterpoint: videos, images, audio, etc. do exist, and there's a point where serving all of that locally will be unsustainable (unless you're okay with extreme server load and painfully slow load times)

heck, massive stylesheets do exist

also, for web clients and such you can't just remove the javascript (and no, application clients are not always viable, see ios)

@maemachinebroke I specifically mentioned sites that need CDNs in the post. CDNs are good and useful! But they're also used by sites that have much better avenues available to speed up their service.

Similarly, JavaScript is good and useful! But it's also often used where it's really not needed and only makes things worse.

Interwebs hot take 

@eishiya Friendship ended with CDNs, now signed mirrors are my best friend.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.ART

Mastodon.ART — Your friendly creative home on the Fediverse! Interact with friends and discover new ones, all on a platform that is community-owned and ad-free. Admin: @Curator. Moderators: @EmergencyBattle, @ScribbleAddict, @TapiocaPearl, @Otherbuttons, @katwylder