4 ms·

Rigor is an interesting point. Do we prefer to have a flawed, but slightly useful, post now - or - do we prefer to wait a month or two for a squeaky clean post

by seiji 15y ago

Rigor is an interesting point. Do we prefer to have a flawed, but slightly useful, post now - or - do we prefer to wait a month or two for a squeaky clean post with all issues worked out?

vog 15y ago
Why not doing both? First a small article about the surprising phenomenon, which announces a more thorough analysis next week. That way, it is possible to get some initial feedback and maybe even some good hints that help speeding up the analysis. In the best case, the announced analysis could become a collaboration by multiple authors.
- seiji 15y ago
  As Randy says: "The best way to get tech support online isn't to ask for help -- just visit a chat room and declare 'Linux sucks! It can't do X!'"
  - btilly 15y ago
    That reminds me of the old trick of asking a reasonable question. Then getting a friend to give a wrong answer to that. The real answer is likely to be somewhere in the flood of corrections that you see.
eli 15y ago
If the config files had been posted, the reader could work out the issues on their own and everybody benefits.
whirlycott1 15y ago
In two years, people will still be saying "nginx + ssl = bad" because of this post even though the problem may well be fully addressed. Google will continue to surface this article even though it may be totally wrong at some future date. That sucks.
- vog 15y ago
  If it was really that easy to spread this questionable message for years, it would be as easy to spread other articles as well. So it wouldn't need more than a few articles, like "nginx + ssl = works like a charm", or "nginx has better SSL support than Apache". It would not matter whether those were actually correct, just a single article of questionable quality would be sufficient.
  - vog 15y ago
    ... and here it is: "nginx does not suck at ssl" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2759596 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2759596
va_coder 15y ago
I agree. What if we all waited until 2008 for an academic to publish a 30 page paper about Ruby and Python and how they can be useful for building web apps?

by seiji 15y ago

Rigor is an interesting point. Do we prefer to have a flawed, but slightly useful, post now - or - do we prefer to wait a month or two for a squeaky clean post with all issues worked out?

vog 15y ago

Why not doing both? First a small article about the surprising phenomenon, which announces a more thorough analysis next week. That way, it is possible to get some initial feedback and maybe even some good hints that help speeding up the analysis. In the best case, the announced analysis could become a collaboration by multiple authors.

seiji 15y ago
As Randy says: "The best way to get tech support online isn't to ask for help -- just visit a chat room and declare 'Linux sucks! It can't do X!'"
- btilly 15y ago
  That reminds me of the old trick of asking a reasonable question. Then getting a friend to give a wrong answer to that. The real answer is likely to be somewhere in the flood of corrections that you see.

eli 15y ago

If the config files had been posted, the reader could work out the issues on their own and everybody benefits.

whirlycott1 15y ago

In two years, people will still be saying "nginx + ssl = bad" because of this post even though the problem may well be fully addressed. Google will continue to surface this article even though it may be totally wrong at some future date. That sucks.

vog 15y ago
If it was really that easy to spread this questionable message for years, it would be as easy to spread other articles as well. So it wouldn't need more than a few articles, like "nginx + ssl = works like a charm", or "nginx has better SSL support than Apache". It would not matter whether those were actually correct, just a single article of questionable quality would be sufficient.
- vog 15y ago
  ... and here it is: "nginx does not suck at ssl" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2759596 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2759596

va_coder 15y ago

I agree. What if we all waited until 2008 for an academic to publish a 30 page paper about Ruby and Python and how they can be useful for building web apps?