Bug#541658: problem not only in the network

[Daniel Gibson]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:39 AM, sasha mal <sasha.mal at excite.com> wrote:
>> Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true.
> You are denying the evident. You have mentioned yourself that a lot of time was invested to support IE.
> Since the majority of pages supported IE, it just confirms what I'm saying: people try to stick to the standard of IE.
> In a few cases even crashes and freezes of IE had to be worked around, making those crashes and freezes, well, a standard.

Pages optimized for IE6 are not necessarily rendered correctly on IE7
or IE8.. so much for Microsofts own "standards".
As mentioned before, this really doesn't matter right now, because
1. it's not about rendering but about a simple HTTP GET request (and
getting no answer) - as mentioned before, any browser and webserver
should at least do this right.
2. it's not "it works on IE but not on Iceweasel" but "it works on
windows and not on linux", at least for me (Firefox on Windows *did*
work).

Until you actually find a system where the page works in IE (even when
cookies are sent) but not in Firefox, this is quite certain.

>
> The input and testing that you did are great anyway, I appreciate that.
>
>> I'm pretty sure that Safari and Firefox don't share Code that is
>> relevant for this (network-specific) problem. Maybe they share
>> spidermonkey-code, but that is just for JavaScript and has nothing to do
>> with the issue.
>
> lynx is the only browser which ignores JavaScript, so JavaScript handling might be (theoretically, just a guess) one component of the issue.

Just do believe me that it has nothing to do with Javascript.
Javascript is executed *after* the page was downloaded by the browser
- and we're not getting that far.
The request for the page is sent, but we don't get any answer. Also,
the pages load fine (including javascript, if any), as long as no
cookie is sent.

>
>> I'm also quite sure that Opera and Firefox don't share any code.
>
>> You can try to verify that on your box with wireshark, but I guess it'll
>> look the same and send no cookie, so the page is loaded without problems.
>
>> How do you connect to the internet with affected boxes? DSL, UMTS, ...?
>> Directly or with a router? What kind of router? etc.
>
> Currently affected network: Wireless->(unknown)->Spanish telecom.
> I have very limited access to the (unknown), but I'll try to provide more information.
>
> I can help with investigation of wireshark on debian from late July 2010 if you say exactly what to type in. At this very moment unfortunately no debian, only OS X, sorry.

Drop me a line then.

>
> It seems to me that it is just hard for most programmers to correctly (with respect to the standards of Cisco & MS, in case there is a difference to RFCs) implement some algorithm,
> which makes the implementation fail in particular networks.

The RFCs are the standard, Cisco and MS are not. But Cisco, MS, ...
try to comply with these standards, afaik. If they didn't the internet
wouldn't work at all.
(Note: The RFCs relevant for this - except for the outdated RFC 1866 -
define how the communication is done on the network,
not how html-pages are rendered or crap like that so the "IE is
standard and everyone optimized for IE6" really has nothing to do with
that.
The W3C does the HTML-standards Microsoft used to blatantly ignore.)

>
> Regards
> Sasha.
>

Cheers,
- Daniel