| No, I do not think you are being negative. Assuming you are approaching HTTP/2 from the user's perspective. Honest opinion: HTTP/2 benefits advertising companies* like Google more than it benefits users, if in fact it even benefits users at all. Perhaps the most oft cited "benefit" to users is encryption. PHK addresses that one. He has a nice line in there about secrecy vs privacy. It's an important distinction. And he reminds us that Google does not care if users are more or less unable to use self-signed certs.* *I saw a prominent Googler refer to his employer an "advertising company" as well as express his distaste for allowing users to choose to use self-signed certs (policy reasons). Of course I'm assuming users want less advertising, not more. In the case you are a user who wants more advertising, and you want it delivered as fast as possible, and you are not concerned about what information is being sent from your computer to the advertising companies when you use a browser... like the ones written by advertising companies or organizations that are paid by advertising companies, then please disregard my opinion. I'm biased. I want less advertising, not more. Plus I have been a long time HTTP/1.1 pipelining user, using a simple HTTP client. I use pipelining to download 100 or more pages of HTML or plain text at a time over a single connection, not 100 ads or other junk I do not need. All in a fraction of the time that it takes one of today's bloated www pages to load in a "modern browser". Whatever the "benefits" to users that HTTP/2 proponents have cited, I have found they can be easily countered or dismissed. HTTP/2 benefits advertisers, no doubt. What else would you expect when the draft spec was written by an advertising company? It's enticing to think about the successor to HTTP/1.1 and what could be improved. But as a _user_ this version of "HTTP/2" is not what you want. |