4 ms·
I found both posts informative, and yet I'm with cbetz on this one. The issue isn't whether Matt's first post was informative but is instead whether it was fair
by SnowLprd 15y ago
I found both posts informative, and yet I'm with cbetz on this one. The issue isn't whether Matt's first post was informative but is instead whether it was fair|wise|necessary to say "Nginx sucks at SSL" instead of, say, "My initial testing, which needs to be investigated further, is showing Nginx SSL performance lower than other alternatives." The first headline is more likely to grab folks' attention, which is probably why Matt chose that headline. It is probably that choice that cbetz finds objectionable, and if so, I agree with him.
- pyre 15y ago> "My initial testing, which needs to be investigated > further, is showing Nginx SSL performance lower than > other alternatives." You keep using that word ('headline'), but I do not think it means what you think it means.
- SnowLprd 15y agoOkay, I'll bite. Here you go: "Initial Tests Show Slow Nginx SSL Performance" Wasn't that hard, was it?
- pyre 15y agoMy point was that you seemed to have purposely made that 'headline' that you thought he should have used needlessly verbose, to the point where it couldn't be considered a headline.