444
jprule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
444 points (100.0% liked)
196
18491 readers
747 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They released the gQUIC reference implementation under the BSD-3 licence. What would have been your preferred way?
Google is a monopoly, consequently most of their in-house tech will make waves if they decide to use it.
Or are you suggesting a nefarious purpose, like MS's EEE?
There’s not really a better way when you’re a monopoly. That’s the problem.
With QUIC and with webp, there was no period of time where the new protocol/format had to compete against other experimental options to see which would win out.
Because Google put it out, and they control an overwhelming share of clients and servers, they were both a foregone conclusion. Google released it, so now it’s a standard. Other companies can either adopt it or fall behind.
This allows them to stack the deck in favor of their portfolio, even if other options were technically superior.
I mean the alternative is what Microsoft does with xml documents where they participate in the standards committee, release a reference implementation, and then intentionally break it in Office so idiots whine about open tools "not rendering correctly"