I mean there are literally no good Linux alternatives, but sure?

The relevant part is before that:

> This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources.

The Google search is the nominator looking for an alternative source that could make it notable, something earlier editors failed to establish.

Approximately nobody charges for basic incoming traffic to a server. If it's not mentioned it's free.

AWS will charge you if you cross zones.

You get a 304 because your browser tells the server what it has cached, and the server says "nothing changed, use that". In browsers you can bypass the cache by using Ctrl-F5, or in the developer tools you can usually disable caching while they're open. Doing so shows that the server is doing the right thing.

Your LLM prompt and response are worthless.

When Chrome serves a cached page, like when you click a on this page and then navitate back or hit F5, it shows it like this:

Request URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46196076

Request Method: GET

Status Code: 200 OK (from disk cache)

I just thought that it would be worthwhile investigating in that direction.

That's a different situation. The browser decides what to do depending on the situation and what was communicated about caching. Sometimes it sends a request to the server along with information about what it already has. Then it can get back a 304. Other times it already knows the cached data is fine, so it doesn't send a request to the server in the first place. The developer tools show this as a cached 200.

Got it, thanks for explaining.

> idk how we can blame some JavaScript and html inside Firefox causing a Wayland crash as Discord’s fault

I don't see anyone talking about a Wayland crash, it's about Discord crashing.

Whoops, I thought I was replying inside this thread tree: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46059256

> I tried Wayland earlier today on my home lab with Plasma and FreeBSD. It seemed pretty great for a bit and ran my monitor at 120Hz.

> Until it hard crashed my machine after I opened discord in firefox. Konqueror crashed on opening.

I lost track of the indentation on my phone

> It mentions CDN77, BytePlus, CacheFly, CloudFront, and Fastly. Is what Cloudflare provides in a different market segment?

Cloudflare's pricing is "free until you get a message from the sales team that it's time to pay up". That's impossible to compare to anything else, so yes effectively a different market segment.

Yup, been there. I was serving more than 45 TB of data a month on one site, and they tried to push me into a $4,000/mo product.

I’ll stick with my $20 subscription, thanks.

> Maybe I missed something but I don’t know what you’re quoting or paraphrasing.

They're quoting the image's title text. Every xkcd comic has one. On desktop you can see it by hovering over the image. On mobile you generally can't see it. You can go to the mobile subdomain (https://m.xkcd.com/3172// and tap on the image, then it pops up underneath.

Ah yeah sorry I was on my phone and don’t usually use the mobile site. The rest of my point stands though. Maybe I’m too close to it but it seems like an odd response. The pains of aging are far preferable to dying of cancer at a relatively young age.

Firefox for Android, for one, shows the alt text at the top of the context menu that pops up when you long press an image.

If it's too long, it gets truncated, though.

You can tap on a truncated alt text to extend it.

Discord does not do any sort of end-to-end encryption. All messages are fully readable and writable by Discord. Discord decides whether you are who you say you are, and all clients trust whatever Discord says to be trustworthy.

> after frustration with Tailscale in environments where it couldn’t properly penetrate NAT/firewall and get a p2p connection, I decided to invest some time into learning something new: Cloudflare Zero Trust + Warp

...which doesn't even try to get a p2p connection. Instead you always get the thing you didn't want. If you're okay with that you could've just ignored how Tailscale connected those devices, that's kind of the point. You've also in the process converted your entire security model to Cloudflare's idea of "Zero Trust" which involves 100% trusting Cloudflare.

The rest of the blog post is fine, but the motivation is honestly baffling.

The difference is that Cloudflare has their own high quality network and PoPs everywhere, so the quality is generally even better than P2P.

This is my experience, we are a fully remote world-wide company and we recently migrated away from Tailscale to Cloudflare and it has been much better.

Eh, kind of.

Peering in Europe is such a mess that even Cloudflare can be pretty bad. Sometimes you have to manually calculate "okay, there's a colo in this particular city that will force the correct route if we proxy all our traffic through it ..."

Is the connection through Cloudflare still encrypted between the two peers, as it would be going through a Tailscale relay? If not, that's definitely a downgrade using the Cloudflare approach. But if not, I'm not sure the trust model is significantly different with maybe the added benefit of the fact that Cloudflare's relay performance is likely better given that relaying traffic is kind of their main thing rather than a very secondary function like it is for Tailscale.

On the other hand, my experience with Tailscale is that they're very, very good at NAT hole punching and I'd rather have a direct connection where possible from a latency standpoint.

> this does possibly have a chilling effect if the vendor's CNA refuses valid vulns

The Linux kernel went in the opposite direction: Every bugfix that looks like it could be relevant to security gets a CVE[1]. The number of CVEs has increased significantly since it became a CNA.

[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/978711/

Thanks. They seem to be pretty proactive indeed if you look at the feed: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/