QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Apr 11 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]124298[/snapback]
Just link to the ComputerWorld article, surely they'll understand why those add-ons are so bad!
Seriously, FasterFox sounds similar to something I remember back in pre-X days, never thought about the bandwidth problems it would cause. But TrackMeNot sounds like a DoS attack, in reverse!
I don't blame you for wanting to limit it.
How do search bots avoid creating bandwidth problems? They
do have to 'view' the html, don't they?
I suppose they may limit themselves to the base/index page, however...
Search engine spiders use bandwidth throttling to avoid placing an undue load on Web sites. A spider will load the HTML for the index page, analyze it, locate all the links, then delay for a set period of time (typically a few seconds) before following the links. It follows the links one at a time, with a brief delay between each one. There are also limits on how often the spider will re-visit each page looking for changes.
Being a good Net citizen means, among other things, not using other people's bandwidth wastefully or unnecessarily. Unfortunately, I think both of those Firefox extensions do that.
The hack to allow Firefox to make multiple simultaneous connections is fine, because it does not download additional pages; instead, it downloads additional content on the same page simultaneously. For example, fi you go to a page with five pictures on it, a browser has to connect to the page six times--once for the HTML, then one more time for each picture. Without the hack, it makes six connections, one right after the other; with the hack, it makes six connections at once. Either way, though, the total amount of bandwidth used is the same. The problem with Faster Firefox, though, is it tries to download the entire site--including pages you
haven't even visited yet.
