[Bloat] First draft of complete "Bufferbloat And You" enclosed.

[Dave Täht]

Eric Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> writes:

> I consider this draft coverage-complete for the basic introduction I was
> aiming at.  Suggestions from dtaht5 and jg have been incorporated where
> appropriate. Critique and correct, but try not to make it longer. I'm a
> bit unhappy about the length and may actually try to cut it.

The only paragraph that stood out as a cut target was the one on NN. 
A sentence, a passing reference, would suffice. NN, like sex, tends to
jolt a limbic system in the wrong direction from rationality. 

(See for example the controversal talk at LCA)

Aside from that I agree that the last section needs to be slightly more,
well, bleak. There is plenty of work left to do. A lot of it is tedious.
A lot of is simple. Some of it requires theoretical breakthroughs.

The fourth item simply isn't true (enough). Work is being done. (Lots)
More people working on the problems identified so far would be great.

A goal for me (at least) for these projects is to see typical Internet
latencies move from seconds - as measured in the US - worse elsewhere -
drop closer to the speed of light in cable - ms - two orders of
magnitude improvement. It will be a better internet experience for
everyone.

(I did enjoy the virtual prozac, however. When I think of the hundreds
of millions of devices that have bufferbloat issues, I find it hard 
to sleep) 

Also I note the "less hard" section can stand alone - as a call to
action - with pointers to specifics (bulleted list! Agg!)


> What you think is technically erroneous may be expressive voice.

Heh.

> (I will also observe that unless you are already an unusually skilled
> writer, you should *not* try to replicate this technique; the risk of
> sounding affected or just teeth-jarringly bad is high.  As Penn &
> Teller puts it, "These stunts are being performed by trained,
> *professional* idiots.")

You don't need to lecture. It's a useful technique. 

I will note, however, that some pieces will need to be translated into
other languages and in that case clarity is essential.

I also note that making people laugh - especially at themselves - is
crucial. We're all bozos on this bus. More shared belly laughs would
help.


> Future directions: unless somebody stops me, I'm going to reorganize
> what wiki docs there are around this thing.  The basic idea is to make this
> the page new visitors naturally land on *first*, with embedded 
> hotlinks to the more specialized stuff.

My thought is that this piece is still WAY too long. And it could use
some graphics. (And PSA music)

What's the elevator pitch?

>
> Explanation: Outlines and bulleted lists of stuff are deadly.  They're
> great for reference, but they scream "too much; don't read" to people
> first trying to wrap their heads around a topic.  Narrative
> introductions with hotlinks are both less threatening and more
> effective. 

Agreed.  A narrative structure frees one from bullet point paralysis. 

(The wiki format is flexible enough for multiple means of navigation.
We still very much want it to be a resource, but also very much want to
ease people into the concepts. 

> The main reason they're not used more is that most people
> find them quite hard to write. I don't.

Have at it!

:me takes cover:

-- 
Dave Taht
http://nex-6.taht.net