🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 2018-01-30, Quadibloc wrote:
> On some tech news site, I came across a comment to the effect that things like 
> Meltdown and Spectre wouldn't be such a big deal...
>
> if the only executable content our computers ran were programs we installed on 
> them.

That ignores the multiuser aspect of computers.

> Of course, that wouldn't prevent viruses 100%, but it would return things back to 
> the situation that existed before the Internet.
>
> So when viewing a web site, the server would have to do all the work of any fancy 
> programmed behavior of the site. The computer would act like it was just a TV set 
> for viewing the site.
>
> I think that this suggestion is a little too extreme. After all, millions of 
> people might be viewing a site on a tiny little server. So the computers of 
> people viewing web sites have to be expected to do some of the work.

A little less fancy programmed behavior would be nice for a
change. Especially since it seems to be there for the benefit of the
content provider most of the time.

I wonder what the energy budget looks like for e.g.:
- Wikipedia
- YouTube
- Facebook
- Google's search engine, and their ads business
- Usenet

I.e. how many watts get burned, and where in the chain.  I imagine
that it varies widely, and that the clever operators try to push it
client-side.

Is there any good research on this?

[snip computer architecture idea; sorry for not at commenting this time]

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .