pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 21 Dec
I remember discussing QUIC around a decade ago as it pretty much replaces the core product the company I was working for at the time. "We need to keep our prices low because these big companies could just replace us with QUIC if they really wanted." It looks like it's nearly here.
The author of imquic links to this blog for getting more acquainted with QUIC.
@rblb not super related, but it reminds me a bit of our chat yesterday.
reply
19 sats \ 1 reply \ @brandonsbytes OP 21h
what was the product that could easily get replaced with QUIC?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 21h
A reliable udp transport protocol that was baked into an scp-like command. It did a lot of what QUIC does.
reply
19 sats \ 3 replies \ @brandonsbytes OP 21h
what was the chat about?
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 21h
websockets vs http
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @brandonsbytes OP 21h
cool. But, QUIC is really a new transport right? Like an alternative to TCP. Websocket lives “inside”/“alongside” http at the application layer.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 20h
Websockets use http for the initial handshake, but are otherwise an independent application layer protocol.
QUIC is built on top of UDP and doesn't rely on TCP for handshakes or otherwise afaict.
reply