@firstname.lastname@example.org This seems to actually be an HTTP/1.1 vs. HTTP/2 test, since no major browser supports HTTP/2 on unencrypted connections.
@email@example.com It's basically an artificial limitation, meant to push HTTPS. But I'm fine with that...
But ultimately, HTTP/1.1 support can never really be dropped, but HTTP/2 and /3 is really only doing favors for select big guys, and can be trivially replaced with HTTP/4.
@rysiek honestly, results are very flaky here, doesn’t seem to mean much at all
but any excuse for more encryption is good
@rysiek here it’s like, HTTPS(/2) is ~0.6 and HTTP(/1.1) is ~0.8, but quite often both might hang and HTTPS might get a lot slower than HTTP as well so
@rysiek Hmm, encryption wouldn't speed it up. I think the speed difference is because they're serving HTTP/1.1 unencrypted and HTTP/2 encrypted.
@firstname.lastname@example.org That's a scam. The unencrypted version uses HTTP/1.1 and the encrypted version uses the faster HTTP/2.
@tastytea I wouldn't call it a scam. It's a bit misleading, sure, but then again: show me a browser that can do HTTP/2 without HTTPS?..
So *technically* they're somewhat right: enabling HTTPS on your website will make it load faster.
@email@example.com “Encrypted Websites […] are Significantly Faster” — lie. They can be faster when HTTP/2 is used, under some circumstances. For example on sites with a lot of small pictures. It doesn't matter much on an average blog or when most of the assets are cached.
You could just as well argue that bicycles are a lot faster than cars, because the cars are stuck in traffic jams on some roads.
@rysiek Now do the same comparison with a lot of caching proxy servers along the way, like the World Wide Web was originally conceived.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!