just stop [Was: Re: [standards-jig] Pub/Sub for JNG?]

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Thu May 2 02:49:52 UTC 2002

Dave wrote:

>Reply inline:
>Van Gale wrote:

>> Probably the most
>>important point you're missing, as evidenced most recently by your signature
>>quoted above, is that _without measurement_ you are wasting everyone's time.
>>The point of Craig's signature is _known_ i.e. _measured_ bottlenecks.
>>Speculation is worthless.  We want to see hard data, not opinion.  If you
>>can prove total system improvement by using compression then I'm all ears.
>>If you are just voicing an opinion, especially an opinion that goes against
>>previous measurements, then you are wasting a helluva lot of people's time.
>I don't think I speculate when I say that people behind dial-up lines
>also like to download (and often upload) large amounts of data, as well.
>Compression and UDP are both very useful for those users.
Do you have some sort of  mental defense against empirical evidence and 
rational thought??

We are saying that existing evidence suggests strongly that neither UDP 
or a gzip-based compression routine are worth it. UDP requires a ton of 
client logic and provides no significant features over TCP, while having 
significant disadvantages such as higher drop rate under periods of 
congestion, and the inability to go through most firewalls. Compression 
via gzip or bzip2 has too small of a window to establish a proper 
dictionary for attack; the set-up cost has been shown to outweigh the 
compression of the buffer.

If you can bring hard evidence and not suspected behavior and opinion, 
people will talk. If you start a project to prototype these 
technologies, people will participate. But I believe I speak for the 
majority of this JIG when I say that you are contributing nothing but 
line noise. You are not taking people's constructive criticisms in mind; 
you are ignoring their arguments and holding no regard for existing 
evidence pain-stakingly gathered by contributers to Jabber over the 
lifetime of the project. You just reiterate over and over that you think 
technology 'x' would be cool because it is supposed to enable 'y', and 
you want 'y'.

I'm not quite at the point to filter your emails automatically, because 
I really believe there is this off-chance that you contribute something 
worthwhile at some point, even if by accident. But I am not going to 
respond to any more posts by you, because:
1. You are ignoring everything other people say other than that they 
disagree with you.
2. You nearly always reply to every email directed to you, whether or 
not you actually have anything constructive to say.
3. The public opinion is rapidly growing that you are either a troll, an 
idiot, or both.

-David Waite

More information about the Standards mailing list