Chrome's Lite Pages Speed Up HTTPS Webpages on Slow Connections (venturebeat.com) 84
An anonymous reader shares a report: Frustrated by web pages that never seem to load properly? Well, Google hopes to make them a thing of the past. Today, the company announced that Chrome on Android's Data Saver, a feature that automatically improves page loading using "built-in optimizations" and dedicated servers -- speeding them up by a factor of two and reducing data usage by up to 90 percent -- now supports encrypted HTTPS webpages. Previously, it only worked with unencrypted HTTP content. The latest stable version of Chrome on Android indicates in the URL bar when a lightweight version of a web page -- a Lite page -- is being displayed. Tapping the indicator shows additional information and provides an option to load the original version of the page. Google says that Chrome will automatically disable Lite pages on a per-site basis when it detects that "users frequently opt to load the original page."
JavaScript is the bane of the entire universe! (Score:4, Insightful)
The real cause: SHITTY JavaScript that pulls in half the world's code base just to render "Welcome to my shitty web page!"
If you're "web developer" creating such abominations, you are a turdbrain dumbass and probably too incompetent to jerk off.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps browsers should have some of the common JavaScript libraries preinstalled like Jquery and Angular.
Or have a way to limit how much of these libraries we need to download to get the page to work. A lot of site you have to download a meg of js code, just so the developer and shortcut a document.getElementById(object).innerHTML = "string" command.
Re: (Score:2)
Leet frameworks like Angular, or React (with the right plugins), is where the bloat comes in
Re: (Score:2)
So you are recommending sites source their js from a site other than their own?
I didn't do any dabbling into ECMAscript until recently. Glad I waited. Seems modern ECMAScript plus HTML5 makes most of the frameworks useless if you are developing something that doesn't have to run on some grandmother's iMac G5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The subject line isn't bullshit. Javascript really is that garbage of a language. While yes, it is true that poor programmers can bollocks up anything, a poorly made language will amplify that behaviour while a good language will mitigate it.
Javascript is so abysmal that it goes one step further and not only makes it trivial to write garbage code, it actually makes it difficult to write _good_ code. It's a god-forsaken clusterfuck that makes about as much sense as Ted Bundy running a rape crisis centre.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Your subject line is bullshit, as your post points out. It's bad programmers. Why that's insightful is most likely due to JS haters and not logic. Don't for a second think any other web language can't be abused in the same way.
You are correct and incorrect about JavaScript. You are correct that the problem stems from programmers (or those who do scripting). But that is the point! You can hardly find someone who really knows JavaScript inside out nowadays (but rather JQuery or any other wrappers). Most of programmers simply use others' libraries because they don't want to reinvent the wheel (as a common concept). Besides, reusing others' libraries save a lot of implementation time. As a result, most people simply take an easy way
Re: (Score:2)
There is a good language hiding in Javascript, but there is a huge mess of bad there too. There is a reason that there is a book called "Javascript: The Good Parts". The saddest part being that there's still a chapter having to cover some of the "Bad Parts" because of the boundary cases where a "Bad Part" tramples on a "Good Part".
One of Javascript's problems ,that it shares with PHP, was that it was never really designed to be much of what it has become. Several of the "Good Parts", like the MOP, was
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on! Don't sugar coat things and tell us how you REALLY feel!
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, so by default Google reads everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean the default for chrome for android is that Google will read everything you browse?
Just like with "AMP" pages. (Score:2)
The goal is not to make life easier for user, but for Google.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the goal here is the same goal Opera had when they added the feature a decade or so ago. It provides a marked improvement in page load time. Yes, it requires sending info through the provider. But it absolutely is a killer feature for shitty mobile connections. The Opera version - at least - would pre-render the page on the server, then generate a vastly simplified version of the page that is designed to render pretty much the same way. Because most web pages are utter shite filled with atrocious a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh, so by default Google reads everything? (Score:5, Informative)
No.
They have a database of commonly accessed content that they have pre-compressed on their own servers, such as Javascript frameworks. When the browser notices it needs to load one, it instead loads from the Google server or uses a locally cached copy. This happens even if the site said "load my copy", which usually means that the browser should re-download it no matter what.
Occasionally this breaks things because some sites modify their local copies, hence the need for the override.
This does not require any data about your browsing habits to be sent to Google, except in cases where you opt-in to sending it when you click on the override. It is explicitly opt-in, turned off by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that. It only knows to even ask for that resource because it has a local SQL database of patterns to match.
And remember that the data saver function is also off by default and entirely opt-in anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Telling a Google server that you want to load a common Javascript framework used on millions of web sites every now and then (after the first load it is cached locally) isn't exactly a massive information leak. It doesn't send the URL you are trying to access or anything like that.
Where are you getting your information?
The only place I could find that has any information about this feature is this:
https://blog.chromium.org/2019... [chromium.org]
It says specifically "When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google."
What do you know that overrides this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you paid nothing for
It's a bit more complex than that, because Google wants me to use its browser. My opinion an desires therefore carry a bit of weight. Maybe a milligram or two.
You are not Google's customer. You are Google's PRODUCT and you are being sold as such.
Well, no, you are both. Google needs to serve you in order for you to see the advertising space it sells to other companies. It's similar to TV - you are their product for advertisers, but you are also their customer and they need to serve your interests. When they don't you leave, as we have seen with cord cutting and people cancelling their cable su
Re: (Score:2)
No.
What else do you call it when information is being leaked from secure site to Google including internal resources loaded and page URLs?
This does not require any data about your browsing habits to be sent to Google
Not according to chromium blog:
https://blog.chromium.org/2019... [chromium.org]
"When Chrome optimizes an HTTPS page, only the URL is shared with Google; other information â" cookies, login information, and personalized page content â" is not shared with Google. "
Sharing URL is very much requiring data about browsing habits.
You want me to LET you MITM my connection?! (Score:2)
So you want me to report every page I visit to you, MITM them. And then, only then, can I opt out and reload the normal way? Fuck. NO!
Data Saver is spyware. Chrome Lite is spyware. Fuck. NO.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they already MITM connections through their VPN?
google walls off the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy cow this is the very thing we are afraid of. like Facebooks Internet basics initiative and all the links inside facebook that only work inside facebook. Already many web pages are no longer accessible on an iphone unless you install chrome. Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
I de-installed chrome just like I quit facebook
Re: (Score:2)
You have paranoid fantasies about Google secretly and illegally watching your every move online, yet trust the Chrome uninstaller?
Better dig a hole, throw your computer in it, bury it, then burn any clothes you have have worn at any time you were alive. Just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I de-installed chrome just like I quit facebook
Cool story. What other ill informed knee jerk reactions did you take?
Now we get this version of the internet only available to websites that optimize their pages for big Goog.
If you didn't uninstall Chrome maybe you could Google what this change actually does so you would realise why your comment sounds incredibly stupid.
Another toll-booth in the making... (Score:3, Insightful)
Going down the Opera list of features... (Score:2)
It seems lately like the Chrome team is just going through a list of features available in Opera in 1998.
I only have a 25Mb/s connection (Score:2)
but I did notice that if you really want to speed up web page loading, a combination of uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and NoScript can drastically reduce your load times. They will save you tons of bandwidth as well if you're facing cap issues.
It is amazing how much faster browsing becomes.
If you REALLY want to speed up your quick access to Internet web sites, elinks seems to be a good way to quickly extract text. You can also pipe pages to scripts...
It's not the page (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the "fast" way is actually slower...
Re: (Score:2)
New flash: Browsers suffer self inflicted wonds (Score:1)
You're kidding right? Lite weight pages load faster? Here I thought loading megabytes of js, css, and other crap were zero cost operations.
Disclaimer I do not work for Google, never will. Here's some free advice, walled gardens are not new nor is the concept of "optimised" content. That is, content written specifically for a platform, see AOL, webworkers, http manifests etc.
What has changed is Google attacking every public standard they can with little after thought as to the implications outside
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's what is called "Slashvertisement"? (Score:2)
Correct title (Score:2)
HTTPS (Score:2)
Innovation (Score:2)