[hobohacker]

Er, I thought I was agreeing with you. What do you think I'm arguing? To be clear, I view these two statements as grounded in the same logic, although perhaps one is more strongly worded than the other:

Yours - "So unless someone has the resources to test and deploy unstable web servers, it effectively means you shouldn't bother with spdy at this point."

Mine - "I think it's a fair assessment that supporting experimental technologies requires more engineering resources. Everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis themselves."

[wbond]

Let me rephrase then:

Don't even bother building nginx 1.4 with spdy support or configuring it since no one can use it. From May 2013 until now there was a benefit to end-users. There no longer is.

If you want to provide the speed benefits of spdy to users, you now need to run unstable nginx or mod_spdy.

[unethical_ban]

Right. I think the point is that you shouldn't be relying on experimental standards for one's web architecture unless you recognize its experimental status.

[benjamincburns]

As an outside observer, it seems like this kind of pattern happens pretty regularly on HN. It's always kind of funny. There seems to be two distinct flavors:

Pattern 1:

    > Statement
    >> Counterstatement!
    >>> You're saying the same thing.
    >>>> I am? Oh. I *am*. Whoops!

Pattern 2:

    > Statement
    >> Agree with tone of disagreement.
    >>> Disagree on disagreement, while offering up facts to somehow agree *harder*
    >>>> Rebuttal, optional restatement of disagreement, optional statement(s) further
    >>>> reinforcing the common point on which we just can't agree to agree