From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: eadf10c7ef89c5f4d68fc3b209f43f06dc897eca53da285f53eaf6a534dc389c
Message ID: <v01510105ab114e937611@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-12 01:05:45 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 11 Dec 94 17:05:45 PST
From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 94 17:05:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: BofA+Netscape
Message-ID: <v01510105ab114e937611@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
[Welcome to the list, Marc. Great to have you here!]
Marc Andreessen wrote
>In article <9412111647.AA23311@tadpole.tadpole.com>, db@Tadpole.COM (Doug
>Barnes) wrote:
>
>> I'll throw in that from the perspective of someone running a server,
>> their approach of requesting all graphics simultaneously over
>> different sockets in the name of client performance is disastrous.
>> This causes most servers to fork N times more per page, where N is
>> the avg. # of graphics.
>
>That's just plain not true. Servers don't fork any more often
>with Netscape than they do with other clients -- EVER.
>
>> but some have speculated that this was done deliberately in order
>> sabotage server software other than their own.
>
>That's also just plain not true, and completely unsubstantiated.
Marc,
have you ever been in an empty lab with an htpd server - late at night? You
can HEAR it when Mozzilla hits the site. Two or three Mozzilla users at the
same time will kill your server. Unless, I understand, it uses your server
software for which you charge money.
Can you be surprised that there are a significant number of people out
there who are wondering if your "selfless" deed of giving away your client
software for free was really all that selfless?
-- Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
Return to December 1994
Return to “shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)”
1994-12-12 (Sun, 11 Dec 94 17:05:45 PST) - Re: BofA+Netscape - shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)