3 ms·

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 we

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"?