4 ms·

I don't think anybody is arguing that Cloudflare provides unique features that can't be obtained otherwise. The point is that CF is VERY convenient to use compa

I don't think anybody is arguing that Cloudflare provides unique features that can't be obtained otherwise. The point is that CF is VERY convenient to use compared to having to do everything you mentioned through different services and then even some more. With Cloudflare you essentially get distributed DNS, a very fast and universally peered CDN, SSL support, IPv6 support, DNSSEC support, HTTP/2 support, website optimizations like responsive images or JS packing, all essentially with one click and for free, and without having to change a line in your code. And if you hit a DDOS, you swipe your card and you are done. This is their USP. Stating that "you can write code and/or do/configure/buy things so that in the end you can avoid using it" is true, but it's a hard sell for an average business. The only way to avoid the Cloudflare monoculture is that true competitors arise. As much as you can hate it, a reverse proxy seems like what people want for this, and Cloudflare has even developed a workaround for the trust issues (keyless SSL) that competitors could offer to non enterprise costumers. I think there's space in that market.

joepie91_ 10y ago
This is essentially arguing that "letting a centralized gatekeeper do all this is easier". While technically true, it also completely misses the point of the web and how it was designed - namely, to be decentralized and not require this. The thing is that "ease of use" isn't the only metric that matters, even if it's the easiest metric to sell. More often than not - especially in more recent 'startup culture' - something being 'easier' just means that it's not doing it correctly, and that somebody somewhere is conveniently ignoring the tradeoffs.
- giovannibajo1 10y ago
  No, what I am arguing is that the CF design of "glorified reverse proxy" is basically a very good product with strong market demand that faces close to zero competition. Compare this to AWS. AWS also "runs" shitloads of the web today; but still, the "centralization" problem is less mentioned in the context of AWS because there is fierce competition (Google, and also OpenStack and all the OpenStack clouds from major vendors). Reverse proxies are "centralized gatekeepers" but no more than a hosting provider is, and we accept those as normal (right?). What if there were 5-6 big players in the "reverse proxy" market, plus a hundred of smaller offerings? Wouldn't that basically solve all the issues of those worried about the "open web"?

joepie91_ 10y ago

This is essentially arguing that "letting a centralized gatekeeper do all this is easier". While technically true, it also completely misses the point of the web and how it was designed - namely, to be decentralized and not require this. The thing is that "ease of use" isn't the only metric that matters, even if it's the easiest metric to sell. More often than not - especially in more recent 'startup culture' - something being 'easier' just means that it's not doing it correctly, and that somebody somewhere is conveniently ignoring the tradeoffs.

giovannibajo1 10y ago
No, what I am arguing is that the CF design of "glorified reverse proxy" is basically a very good product with strong market demand that faces close to zero competition. Compare this to AWS. AWS also "runs" shitloads of the web today; but still, the "centralization" problem is less mentioned in the context of AWS because there is fierce competition (Google, and also OpenStack and all the OpenStack clouds from major vendors). Reverse proxies are "centralized gatekeepers" but no more than a hosting provider is, and we accept those as normal (right?). What if there were 5-6 big players in the "reverse proxy" market, plus a hundred of smaller offerings? Wouldn't that basically solve all the issues of those worried about the "open web"?