In plaats van hier snel een meninkje over al dan niet subtiel seksisme te ventileren, heb ik op basis enkele van de “moeilijke” vragen die ik sluw in mijn betoog wilde verbergen, een kleine enquête in elkaar geflanst. Doet ge mee?
Yesterday at work I had a discussion with one of the guys in charge of our DNS. I asked him to create a CNAME record on one of the domains under our authority, pointing to an external canonical name, but he kindly refused. So I asked whether this was company policy of some kind, as I saw no technical reasons for this not to work, but he answered:
No, the problem is technical; the hostname one points to, has to be managed on the same DNS-platform and this can’t be done in this case as we’re not the SOA for the external domain
So to prove my point (yeah, that’s how I roll) I created a temporary CNAME-record on my own domain, pointing to the external hostname (much the same way static-cdn.futtta.be is just an alias for blog.futtta.netdna-cdn.com) but that did not convince my colleague either:
Making a SOA on a server where that isn’t allowed, is not really according to the standards.
As the change was pretty urgent and there weren’t any important downsides, I adapted my change request for the DNS-entry to be created as an A-record. But in the mean time I started reading up on CNAME’s on Wikipedia and glanced over the two relevant RFC’s (RFC 1034 and RFC 2181), but I really can’t find any confirmation of what my (respected) colleague is referring to. But I’m sure there are smarter people reading this here blogpost who might be able to explain what I am obviously missing, no?
- better video playback performance/ quality
- somehow feels more professional (it’s the way the YouTube mobile site seems to work as well for example)
- you force visitors out of the context of your webpage
- a small percentage of Android visitors will get an ugly error message as they do not have a native YouTube player
- only works for single video’s, not for playlists (or at least so it seems) and the audio-only trick obviously won’t work either
Let’s start with the results for the browsers on my Windows XP SP2 installation, ordered from slowest to fastest. Each test was executed 2 times, clicking on the results will teleport you to the detailed results where you can paste the URL’s of another test to compare.
- msie 6 (6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300): 47203.0ms +/- 16.7% and 47882.2ms +/- 4.9%
- IE 7 (standalone version, see below): 44726.2ms +/- 4.1% and 42655.2ms +/- 5.0%
- firefox 2 (22.214.171.124): 26025.4ms +/- 4.5% and 25305.0ms +/- 1.1%
- opera 9.27: 14202.0ms +/- 1.0% and 14755.6ms +/- 2.4%
- opera 9.5 (b2, build 9945) produced a number of ‘NaN’s’, but is clearly faster then it’s predecessor
- safari 3.1 (build 525.13): 6759.0ms +/- 1.2% and 6750.8ms +/- 2.0%
- firefox 3 (rc1): 5830.4ms +/- 2.2% and 5765.8ms +/- 1.0%
The MSIE7-results are probably not entirely representative, as I use Tredosoft’s standalone IE7. This is a bit of a hack to have IE7 on my otherwise MSIE6-based system. Moreover my corporate Windows-installation is infested with crapware, notably McAfee OAS and Zonealarm seem to be slowing things down enormously. The codinghorror-tests indeed show significantly better results for this browser, although IE does have serious issues with string concatenation, which should be fixed in IE8.
- opera 9.27: 15343.2ms +/- 1.1% and 15499.4ms +/- 1.1%
- firefox 3 (rc1, official mozilla build): 5352.6ms +/- 1.1% and 5343.8ms +/- 0.6%
- firefox 3 (b5, included in ubuntu 8.04): 5195.2ms +/- 1.6% and 5240.2ms +/- 1.4%
- konqueror 4: not tested yet,
results will follow later todaycan’t get test to completely run, any KDE-user want to give this a try?
Firefox 3 RC1 seems slightly slower then b5, but maybe the Ubuntu-b5-version is compiled with optimizations? Firefox is also faster on Ubuntu, but the anti-virus-bloat is probably messing with our heads here (although Opera is slower on Linux, go figure).