Names aren't sacred. Windows skipped 9 for technical reasons, iPhone skipped 9 for marketing reasons. They only people impacted by a skipped http/3 would be technical people upgrading from /2 to /4 in 5 years.
Nginx can support HTTP 1.0, 1.1, and 2 all at once. I'd suspect one day it will be able to support 3 as well. And I'd imagine that any other server software of consequence is going to as well.
Yes, and the more protocols running, the less likely it is to ever be replaced some day. Who has the time to write 2 (1.0 and 1.1 are basically equal) servers for a minimum package?
If somebody still sold HTTP servers, I would look how this one was bribing the standardizing process. But it looks like people are doing it freely.
I really can't figure out what you are saying. I don't see any evidence of bribery. And the technologies we're talking about have pretty legitimate reasons for existing. So, ...?
Unfortunately, the low-level infrastructure of the web is now being controlled by a company which offers significant internal performance incentives for releasing new products.
QUIC is hardly a product - very few users will ever know what it is. That Google has significant influence on internet infrastructure is hard to deny - but saying they are in control is ridiculous. And a lot of that influence comes from hiring really knowledgeable people - ignoring them just because they work for Google would be silly, especially for something like QUIC that is open and generally useful.
Really? I thought it was because they don't plan to release another major version of windows, and wanted the number to have a nice solid "10", rather than a "9"
Idiots wrote code that says if osversion.startsWith('Windows 9') this is some crufty old Win9x system.
To revert to the actual topic, to defend against this type of thing the QUIC binding for HTTP assigns an arbitrary non-contiguous group of identifiers as reserved to be ignored in various places, with the intent that some real systems will prod these once in a while, to discourage idiots hard-coding checks that will become obsolete.
As far as I've seen, there was never any proof that Microsoft chose the Windows 10 name for that reason. I find it especially unlikely considering Vista broke even more recent compatibility.
My recollection is that MS did confirm that Windows 10 was chosen for some vague mention of technical reasons, which most people latched on to as being explained by the "Windows 9" check.
I have seen code in the 2010s that did explicitly check for "Windows 9" as a means to check if it was running on Windows 95 or 98. That doesn't mean that the code would actually work on those systems (it could well be a prelude to saying "your system is too ancient, we don't support you"). But such kind of cruft tends to last a very, very long time without active maintenance.
