3 ms·
At first glance this looks like a site that should be easily cacheable, at least for non-logged-in users. Also, I'm surprised this isn't using HTTPS.
by nilsb 4y ago
At first glance this looks like a site that should be easily cacheable, at least for non-logged-in users.
Also, I'm surprised this isn't using HTTPS.
- ramesh31 4y agoWelcome to the web of 2004. It was a magical place full of uncached PHP applications, raw exposed MySQL servers, and nary an SSL cert in sight.
- kazinator 4y agoYou could easily take a server that has not been upgraded since 2004 and put it behind a reverse proxy (e.g. Apache) that gives it a SSL with up-to-date crypto.
- ramesh31 4y ago>You could easily take a server that has not been upgraded since 2004 and put it behind a reverse proxy (e.g. Apache) that gives it a SSL with up-to-date crypto. You sure could. You could also run it as a flat file CMS hosted across multiple fallback cloud storage providers and cached out to a global edge CDN. But that’s web scale. The internet used to be human scale.
- kazinator 4y agoWhat I'm describing just requires a single web server like Apache, with less than half a dozen lines of config to delegate a certain page or domain to the old server via reverse proxying. Did you see the word "reverse proxy" and start thinking about CloudFare and such?
- cpurdy 4y agoYes, but it makes up for the lack of HTTPS by using plain text passwords. /s (Sorry, I initially forgot the sarcasm indicator.)