Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Lowering Bandwidth Costs for Slash-based Sites

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-was-doing-OK-until-it-mentioned-perl dept.

xyzzyyzzyx writes:

"Avantslash is touting a user hosted perl script that, if paired with any web browser with JavaScript, promises to shave crucial bytes off of the standard Slash-based experience, one of which is our very own SoylentNews. Audiences include those with very limited bandwidth, such as those in developing countries with only 2G mobile access or dialup."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Lowering Bandwidth Costs for Slash-based Sites | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 58 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by Hell_Rok on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:02AM

    by Hell_Rok (2527) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:02AM (#15619) Homepage

    I imagine you could do something similar with a browser extension.

    You could detect the website the user is trying to go to, check if it has some sort of json/xml/etc api and display the data using local css and javascript.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stderr on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:15AM

    by stderr (11) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:15AM (#15626) Journal

    Browser extensions and mobile platforms don't always mix very well.

    --
    alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" # ... and get off my lawn!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Geotti on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:59AM

      by Geotti (1146) on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:59AM (#15642) Journal

      Sometimes, though, they do [saurik.com].

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:25PM (#16025)

    It's only part about look and usability. A browser extension wouldn't address the part about slashing mobile download size. (and would load even slower with the extra processing being done locally)