From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com ([209.85.128.45]) by ewsd; Thu Feb  6 09:42:58 EST 2020
Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id b17so292391wmb.0
        for <9front@9front.org>; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 06:42:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=Rt3OMv4wmt0cpZKZOjW5Ojvx0BNR8WhY2bsi4weqnr0=;
        b=DWrOkKLBLpPvknuovzEY/Y2OVjcXJ7c5DtI/HXTyGb0fNYYAZq7kfJhJUXICJkV7J3
         hctrA2QI41oBGEIWFE3OyJVk69plRuHOHCCQlHFW7v5rKFonWILu9seqChZzmli76mDI
         jBjRieySoMEGoUzL04lcfkVCSyQNzC8HkDDDcJ8wdNi4dIu2xwoa1UEOvNNTN58SbueS
         xWuCaMQBbndDWtg0xRzp6NiujgQ1rXarD4QueCXmwwMiKWUl1CHtSUh3WKkmDoZpj7NA
         hlagGGekvZKovd8B0AySVrlOCAGHDt5Y6TtgUe1c0WsU0ArKH0QE7Hp9p5JckgJiogPR
         lVZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=Rt3OMv4wmt0cpZKZOjW5Ojvx0BNR8WhY2bsi4weqnr0=;
        b=pXwuULIYOn4JbSJkcjbRungNngTOvXfZpdAhUf1zr5/qM4hm4AMz4lMBngEmjuBCvs
         BtdzVn1k1K1Rk/Jq3DUih8R4iiy9UZOWAPEeeVupyIz7vIFoMj3tcRJoVCG2WbD7rSHE
         7eNkYu5joWAs4AH5/QDh6hSk8ewg93hs47Q7+8EXKVd3OWjsGtPS41xRMzPJq3jY4DYz
         qTQ4XKJNwR5SjGblhAWx5W7Vi63y206xhPrU2gPS74nFLcjaqngFYYo9E86FymPeWUXR
         LZVESL64ztB/hFswjwu++9abVjkJR3pON18GT0L54Do5fCZc/bMAFfBx+qQZZyZsEXYs
         3Pkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWzrPnVs3cvzJrDC3/HZW/lZG1unEOb+zqQWzKtvLuOauksECvC
	gNbbmvuGT0leHW2jMiicqz/WYEDYNotw9SjbAs77GA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwEQ0pJvnpWBQpXJxG/JqxFvkAShCq+FLetrtrUrSaNY2Ty4pOq5ZB8ppofyQun0PbNp/4nwPXTct0lTTXmUpE=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cae2:: with SMTP id t2mr5021196wml.180.1581000174352;
 Thu, 06 Feb 2020 06:42:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a5d:438b:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:42:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <c1cb9a26a453a024eea55cbb2243dc13@oboj.net>
References: <2BD7E22B46E161C63AB94CC9F9EDFA4E@hera.eonet.ne.jp>
 <3611CE38-6E0B-49B5-80FF-B65A0955954E@sdf.org> <c1cb9a26a453a024eea55cbb2243dc13@oboj.net>
From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:42:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFSF3XM4h71nmg_Joe=Hz5VNybXgED3QaD1Xkcvyq0MjpQOk5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9front] Netsurf 3.9 for Plan 9 (work in progress)
To: 9front@9front.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: flexible package proxy polling framework 

@steve: i used to run a caching proxy for all web clients in my
network, back when there were still multiple web browser vendors and
the majority of websites (barring the ones where you log in with
user/pass) still supported plain unencrypted access by default.

it was great. ad blocking and caching could be done on a beefy central
machine and everybody around would benefit from it.

nowadays it has become completely unusable. everything is encrypted
anyway, and even when i check the way that chrome uses web site
ressources it seems that the web servers are always so slow anyway
with providing the main content (which always is small though) that
the overhead of downloading all the other content over and over again
isn't so important any more.

my bandwidth is big. i'm mainly bottlenecked by the javascripts in the
browser, some sluggish interaction with sliding and fading video
windows that want to evade my mouse pointer, or the web server's very
slow processing times.

even closing tabs nowadays on a modern computer takes longer than
turning off windows98 safely.

that's why i ask: why not leave away caching?
did you do any real tests? :)