Respectfully, I disagree, since we see exactly the opposite of what you're saying using our CDN setup. Packet loss over long distances causes a slow retransmittal if it has to go across the world. More switching = slower transmittal as well, so if you can reduce the number of stops along the way, you're going to see both lower latency and less retransmission.

Also, I never said bandwidth, I just said it would get there more slowly, and that's due to the number of computers sitting between me and the theoretical server in San Francisco.

You say TCP handles latency just fine, but in reality TCP requires no packet loss and low latency to avoid burst/wait, so since I'm more likely to hit a high latency connection crossing the world, it's also more likely that I'll get greater levels of packet loss, and therefore the packet window will be smaller than a low latency 100% packet transfer.

The whole point of a CDN (the middle initial) is distribution, theoretically to a broad area.

For example, without a CDN, you have 3 servers, all located in San Francisco. The guy who lives in Florida (or Russia, or South America) who requests content from your server will receive it much more slowly than the guy who lives in Vegas.

With a CDN, there will be servers all over the nation (and preferably around the world, if you serve internationally) which will be physically closer to the requestor that can serve with a lower latency. The servers within the CDN farm utilize reverse DNS lookup to balance and serve traffic from the correct place.

This is the best post on /. I've read in years. Do you offer security consulting services?

It's usually in the comments that I find gems of knowledge (or stupidity), not the stories.

For gems of stupidity I just wait until kdawson's shift.

I've observed that it downloads the route, and from there uses GPS only, except for when you change the zoom level or go to top-level view instead of 3/4th view. 2G speeds are not that bad for such small amounts of data though, especially if you only need 1 or 2 images a minute.

Verizon has excellent 3G coverage, and I am in a remote rural area. Sure, I may be a rarity but if I had an iPhone it would be unusable for data except in my house over wifi.

You sure are putting a lot of extra words in my mouth to support your view, and you're just conflating one of my points with another to prove your own.

I never used communist wording, I simply stated exactly how the iPad is set up. I'm not trying to get your goat with weasel words. It's a centralized system controlled entirely by Apple as a monopolistic business. I'm not even saying it's a bad strategy on their part, I'm simply stating facts. How else would you describe it? Compare that to the clearly decentralized netbook market, and the somewhat decentralized Android ecosystem.

My point regarding freedom and flexibility was that nobody's going to ask "is this system open and configurable?" for the iPad because they shouldn't have to, it should just be so. Obviously the people specifically choosing Android (or whichever open system) for freedom would by definition be moving from a closed system at some point in their past, so they would know what to look for. These are very clearly 2 distinct groups of buyers: 1st case is average iPad buyer, 2nd case is the guy that's wanting something open. I think it's much easier for buyer #1 to be converted to buyer #2.

The lack of Flash may not be a hindrance in the (hopefully near) future. Firefox cannot support h.264 due to open source standards, but I don't use Firefox as a regular web browser either. Also, there's a difference between what people are actively using (Flash) vs. a video format that's not in a final specification (for the HTML spec, not the format itself) or even implemented on 1% of websites that could. I don't know about any 90% of sites using Flash, because it certainly doesn't seem that high to me (unless we count ads), but until Flash video is no longer the standard it's going to stay, because it works. It's not the best solution, but it's here, it has the market, and it's cross-platform.

By the way, the market for Linux (or for the core of the argument, Unix) may seem miniscule to you, but it's huge in servers and embedded devices. People continue to choose it, and the market for it has grown or stayed steady while declining for everything else in the past few months.

For current, well-established competitors, my whole point is that a netbook will work better than an iPad in most cases. You could consider the current generation of powerful phones coming out in +/- 3 months to be competitors, and certainly traditional laptops and notebooks as well. Perhaps you've heard of Dell, HP, and Acer? They have a large stake invested in micronotebooks and netbooks, and they're doing a really good job of packing features in at a comparable price to the iPad.

As for your final point, you're wrong. My opinion at the time that the iPhone v1 came out was that it was a total piece of crap, despite the brand new interface that shocked the world except for the entire continent of Asia. v2 made a significant number of improvements and left many others out. The 3GS is actually a nice phone, except that it's still trying to compete with what the market was like years ago. I hope that the next one theoretically coming out this summer is awesome, because it will keep the market moving. I hope the same for the iPad, but for now it doesn't have enough features to warrant the price, and it hardly has any more power than my phone. I expect more out of a laptop-type device.

This is my last response. I certainly have bias against the iPad, but your bias in favor of it goes way beyond what any normal human being should possess, with 25+ posts defending it so far, and you're not even addressing the issues without (purposely?) confusing what I'm saying. We will have the answer to this debate in about 3 years. If you're right, I'll come shake your hand and buy you some gummy bears.

Wow this is a wall of text. *sigh* 1. Ok, first of all the benefit of the netbook keyboard is that it's built in. Nobody wants to try to balance the iPad at an angle and try to finagle a keyboard on their lap at the same time, regardless of the manner that it's connected. 2. Battery life is 6-10 hours for most netbooks, which is certainly within the range of the iPad, considering the increase in power and extensibility. 3. Video on a 5-year-old iPod is not Flash, so you're not even making a decent argument here. Not to mention that it's at 320x240, which even the worst netbook can blaze through. Can your 5-year-old iPod play video in HD? How about over the internet? What's the excuse? 4. No, my netbook does much more than an iPad for what I want to use a computer for, not novelty bullcrap like you're spouting. No iPad is "morphing into thousands of other devices". What planet are you from? You're confusing software with hardware at this point...go buy any audio mixing software if you want a performant solution. I can watch as much Netflix as I want, and I can watch in HD even. Oh, and it outputs to my HDTV. Not only that, but I can stream video from my home server through it, or share my library with any of the other computers in my house so they can watch in the other room for a party. If I just get really crazy, I might even hook into my DVR and stream to anywhere else in the house. Amazing! The iPad has a touch screen and orientation switching which is certainly good for some cool apps, but that doesn't mean it's useful. 5. You're oversimplifying what browsing is. You're doing a subset of browsing (and no, "zooming" is not part of the web). Also, just because something is touch interactive doesn't mean it's more natural or intuitive. It's just another interface for humans to understand. It's certainly a good interface, but definitely not the only or most natural way of doing it. Why don't you try giving voice commands sometime? That's way more natural, IMO. 6. Yes, I'm going to win the argument on video because of what I said above. You show me where the HDMI cable plugs into your iPad and you'll have won. Is there an app for that? And by the way, vendor-neutral means it works on my netbook, laptop, phone, and any other computers too, so it's not really an advantage for the iPad here. 7. I know all about video codecs dude. I've helped implement them. Yes, the iPad can do it, and you can go rent all the $2.99 videos you want from the iTunes Store, and I'll continue watching whatever I want on my HDTV through my netbook and laptop. 8. I love Opera and I use the full version daily (and Opera Mobile for a previous phone) but Opera Mini is meant for dumbphones, not for a device like a netbook or an iPad. It's intentionally marketed for phones that limit bandwidth or have hardly any processing power. It's honestly not even a full browser. We're talking about full, actual browsers here, such as Firefox, Opera desktop, Chrome, (name your favourite browser here) etc. 9. I don't like viruses either, which is why I don't have any, and I am responsible about computer security. All systems are insecure in some manner, even the ones running Apple software. My moral high ground is this: there are people that will get viruses on systems that provide freedom. I choose that freedom to modify my system in manners that I deem necessary or useful to me, with the knowledge that it is my responsibility, not Big Brother's, to protect me. Not everyone likes this philosophy, so they can have a different system. 10. Dell, HP, and Acer all have netbooks that look quite nice. They're even shiny! 11. People always love the talking point about how Apple software is just so easy to use, but like I mentioned above, it's just another interface for humans to understand. And yeah, when you have a severely limited number of features, you can simplify the interface. But netbooks are quite simple to use for most folks. Open it up, click the shiny email or web icon, and off you go. There are toddlers and grandmas using non-iPad devices too. 12. Your argument about having "C" apps is so completely ridiculous. That's like saying that everything developed in the last 35 years isn't working for modern computers. The programming language is only important for determining the past experience of the developers working on the platform, and has almost nothing to do with performance or application usefulness (with the exception of Palm and their ill-advised platform for the Pre, etc). That "fragmented" Android market sure is pumping out a lot of apps for each fragment of the market. How about that fragmentation of having the iPad and iPhone both on the App Store now? How about having several different supported versions of the Mac OS? Does that make the latest version any worse? 13. Flash is not vendor lock-in, because it runs on a variety of devices and platforms. Besides, the vendor lock-in that I'm talking about is App Store dominance and the jailbreak requirement to run apps that are not approved by Apple. Again, Big Brother's watching to make sure you don't get a boo boo.

People just want their computer to work, or be easy enough that they can have their 11-year-old nephew set it up for them. They expect that it can do certain things and that they can do a certain number of things they have in their head that they think a computer should do.

I think some people don't care at all about freedom and flexibility, and (like you) are ok with having a centralized dictation of what their computer is going to be. It's maintenance-free in theory, and meets a set of perceived needs.

Now, I believe that those same people don't care about freedom until it bites them in the ass. Case in point: all the people that buy Android-based phones because they don't want the iPhone lock in. Also, all the jailbreakers that are disappointed that Apple won't let them install unapproved apps, or simply because they wanted to root their phone/iPad. Your head is buried several feet into the sand if you think there isn't a significant market share that is leaving Apple just to get away from the App Store (with the real issue being complete lockin).

Your argument in your last sentence that people don't ask about freedom and flexibility is silly because nobody's going to ask that. They're going to expect it, because that's generally what we've had in computing for the last 40 or so years. Would you know how to phrase that question if you didn't know much about the iPad? No, you wouldn't even know it's a question you should be asking, and the salesperson sure isn't going to mention that "oh yeah, you have to buy only our approved software, and P.S. you're limited to a subsection of the internet because we don't really support the most common plugin on the internet".

I agree with what you're saying about the keyboards, to some extent. Keep in mind that the average person with typing lessons is pretty used to typing with some sort of physical feedback. Hands that are too close together are certainly a problem on some netbooks, but I've found mine to be adequate, and I have pretty big palms.

Also, you're completely missing the point of the Netflix/Unbox/Home Video -> iPad argument. I don't want to watch Netflix on a 10" screen at 1024x768 that's sitting in my lap unless I'm on the crapper for an entire weekend. I want to watch it on a large television, and netbooks have the peripheral support to do that. The same goes for the DVD player. It's not a shareable experience...it's pretty much just you sitting in a chair by yourself if you want to watch movies. Best case you might have a hot chick you "have" to snuggle up close to so that she can see too (advantage: iPad).

My point is that you're missing the forest for the trees. You say "oh it doesn't matter that iPad does it this way, or that it can't do feature X because nobody cares", but what it comes down to is that the most open and widest possible market that can still keep a near-monopoly always wins. The iPad has far too many well-established competitors to last as it is for very long. There will surely be an iPad v2 that will be able to conquer these obvious flaws. Until then, I hold my view that it's too expensive for what you get.

You sure do like making irrelevant points with no basis in how people are actually using computers.

Clearly when people say "real" keyboards, they are talking about something with more than haptic touch response. Everybody knows this.

I own a netbook. My in-laws own a netbook. I've worked on probably 15 others, and they've all run Flash video just fine with the exception of two that are old.

Your issue with pricing goes the other way. If I want more features, I can buy a better netbook or laptop. My point was that even a bottom of the barrel netbook does way more than the nicest iPad, with the obvious exception that many of the super-cheap netbooks are ugly. But, like anything else, that may be a tradeoff worth having for all but the most pretentious of the turtleneck-wearers.

So what's not cool about being able to browse Facebook normally, or showing my parents my kid over Skype, or browsing all of the WWW (or the whole internet, for that matter), or being able to type with a laptop in my lap, or (for the nerdier among us) play videos from a home server or the internet that's not YouTube? Netflix, Unbox, and Hulu are really big forces in the netbook market. That's why a lot of people buy them...like a DVD player on steroids that you can send emails and chat from too.

Again, video chat and Flash are not crap on netbooks that are released within the last year or two. Apparently the last netbook you used was the OLPC or the prototype eeePC.

And yeah, you can listen to music in stereo on the iPad if you hook up speakers, and you can use the browser of your choice if it's been made available on the iPad. Which it probably hasn't, so have fun with Safari.

And you don't care about installing software from anywhere on the internet? It doesn't bother you that the iPad's only source of downloads is the App Store? What the hell is wrong with you?

In conclusion, a lot of people will buy iPads and love them. Good for them. The iPad is a beautiful machine and it holds a certain appeal. However, people that want freedom and flexibility, and legitimate ease of use, will be buying something else, whether it be a netbook, a new phone, or any number of other competitors that will surely enter the market.

The same thing happened with the iPhone. It "innovated" and then stagnated as everyone else in the market blew by because of Apple's vendor lock in. I doubt the iPad will be much different.

Neither do netbooks.

Netbooks may not have a large keyboard, but it is physical, and it has keys.

It supports high def, unlike netbooks generally.

720p is considered HD on a smaller screen, and most netbooks have an HDMI port to spit HD in 1080p, if needed

Flash runs like shit on netbooks.

Flash runs fine on every netbook I've tested it on. FUD.

The iPad has limitations, and if those limitations are something that bother you, then sure, a netbook can be a better choice

Obviously every machine has limitations, but the iPad's are stupid limitations that don't serve much of a purpose other than vendor lockin or stupid pricing strategies. You can buy a $400 netbook and a $50 Sprint 4G card if you want to replace that $600 3G iPad, and you can do all sorts of cool things, such as type like a normal person, video chat, do things in Flash, listen to music in stereo, use a browser of my choice, connect to my TV to watch Netflix, and install software from anywhere on the internet without voiding my warranty. Oh, and netbooks have more processing power than my cell phone, but the iPad doesn't. Oh.

Yeah, I'm not sure why Mini was released for Android. I want Opera Mobile. It was vastly superior than any other available browser on my Windows Mobile phone, and I loved it then. Not that I really miss it on my Droid since the built in browser is nice, but I think Opera Mobile will be nicer if they release it.

Well, it speaks volumes that you believe that human beings, who are the most generalized species in the world, should sit down, shut up, and do a narrow-minded--regardless of how brain-intensive your job--set of tasks for something like 8-12 hours per day consecutively. If you have a job where you're required to use that stuff between your ears, it's better to take breaks, stop focusing, and think about other things in life once in a short while.

Why should I have to compartmentalize my entire personal life and shove it in a corner? Who says that work is priority #1? That's an unhealthy viewpoint, and one that's likely to turn you into a scrooge.

Leaving your personal issues at the door is about as ridiculous as saying you're not going to be thinking about work over the weekend or on your drive home. Clearly there's overlap in all sorts of areas in your life.

You're too extreme the other way.

It really does depend on what you're using Ajax for, like you sort of said. Google Suggest was the "first" very noticeable public demo of what Ajax was, and it's a very good application. However, a lot of developers found their proverbial hammer and decided that Ajax to refresh most or all of the page is somehow better, where in fact there's the additional steps of variable evaluation and DOM insertion before you even get to a browser render.

This really depends on what's happening behind the scenes. Small requests would be completed quicker, so more could be done in parallel, which of course decreases queueing and potential locking problems. Also, if you implement some sort of donut hole caching for your Ajax scheme, those small requests could come from memory instead of doing heavy processing on the back end. If you do it right, and you have a server with multiple cores (hopefully you do), you'll end up ahead with Ajax in this case.

This is just blatantly not true unless the developer is a talentless hack that's recursively attaching nodes to the DOM at the outset of an Ajax response, rather than when the dynamic node tree is fully built. During a full page load, the browser is going to be rehashing the parse/render routine over and over as more data downloads, while an Ajax call is going to batch it together through a single parse (hopefully a strict XML parse) and render once the DOM branch is attached to the renderable tree.

If the site's developer is refreshing too much of the page, then what you're saying could be true. Most of the time, heavy Ajax is used on web apps that make more sense with a desktop sort of feel to them. Nothing's more annoying than full page refreshes every time I click a button in a web app.

That's ok, nobody feels smart implementing a Java interface

Mod +5, Troll