4 ms·
It's just me or SSLPing used an incredibly complex set of tools? Simplicity always pays of. But I guess real simplicity is harder to implement, and a lot of th
by kome 5y ago
It's just me or SSLPing used an incredibly complex set of tools? Simplicity always pays of. But I guess real simplicity is harder to implement, and a lot of those tools make life easier for developers.
- dijit 5y agoI think it's just you, the advice in 2016 was "just throw it up on something using docker compose", "you can later expand it with Swarm". NodeJS was a common choice too. The real problem was their lack of an upgrade path I suppose, not the tech stack itself. I'm also guilty of doing this and I'm an ops person, if you can't keep upgrading at a decent pace then the cost of all the upgrades becomes too great to take in one chunk.
- kome 5y ago> I think it's just you, the advice in 2016 was "just throw it up on something using docker compose", "you can later expand it with Swarm". > NodeJS was a common choice too. I agree it was common and perhaps fashionable, and perhaps it made life easier, but it also added so many level of complexity and technical debt, that now are a burden. That why I say simplicity is hard, but then it pays of (perhaps).
- dijit 5y agoCompared to the standard deployment stack these days: what SSLPing was using seems extremely simple though honestly.
- hsn915 5y agoIt is, but the people realizing this are very small in number. It's not just SSLPing, it's the entire industry. SSLPing is aruably a lot simpler (comparitavely speaking) than many other products.
- hotpotamus 5y agoBy today's standards, Docker Swarm on dedicated servers is very simple. Complexity would be putting this into cloud with auto-scaling and probably half a dozen cloud services stitched together.