Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#111

Post by pjbrunet »

harshreality wrote: post #109
pjbrunet wrote: post #106

I liked the CloudFlare concept (protecting good people) until I found it protects bad people as well: scammers, thieves, cybersquatters, phishing. CloudFlare makes it very difficult to contact the web host cloaked by CloudFlare. CloudFlare is helping the scum of the Internet. They need to be held accountable for what they're serving, if they're not going to reveal who is hosting the site. If there's a way to find the…

Have you thought about that beyond your knee-jerk reaction? One of the primary reasons for using cloudflare is resistance to denial of service attacks, and you want cloudflare to helpfully publish the real IP of the server CF is proxying for? Scammers, thieves, phishing, and cybersquatting are weak or nonsensical reasons for demanding that CF reveal the IP they're proxying for. If a site is breaking the law, use the…

I should be able to easily contact the web host and say, "Heads up, your server is doing some bad stuff." This works because hosts don't want to be in business with scum. They take care of it. Because it's the right thing to do, or because they would rather not be involved in a lawsuit, on the wrong side of a PR nightmare. Pretty basic, Internet 101. If I email abuse@cloudflare.com nobody gives a shit. It's irresponsible. A lawsuit should be a last resort.

I'm not advocating a more or less anonymous Internet by criticizing CloudFlare.

PS: I enjoyed your comment and upvoted it.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#113

Post by codexon »

harshreality wrote: post #109
pjbrunet wrote: post #106

I liked the CloudFlare concept (protecting good people) until I found it protects bad people as well: scammers, thieves, cybersquatters, phishing. CloudFlare makes it very difficult to contact the web host cloaked by CloudFlare. CloudFlare is helping the scum of the Internet. They need to be held accountable for what they're serving, if they're not going to reveal who is hosting the site. If there's a way to find the…

Have you thought about that beyond your knee-jerk reaction? One of the primary reasons for using cloudflare is resistance to denial of service attacks, and you want cloudflare to helpfully publish the real IP of the server CF is proxying for? Scammers, thieves, phishing, and cybersquatting are weak or nonsensical reasons for demanding that CF reveal the IP they're proxying for. If a site is breaking the law, use the…

Cloudflare also protects websites that provide denial of service attacks.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10194724

At the very least, they should be revealing the IPs of these websites.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#114

Post by snug »

pjbrunet wrote: post #111
harshreality wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought about that beyond your knee-jerk reaction? One of the primary reasons for using cloudflare is resistance to denial of service attacks, and you want cloudflare to helpfully publish the real IP of the server CF is proxying for? Scammers, thieves, phishing, and cybersquatting are weak or nonsensical reasons for demanding that CF reveal the IP they're proxying for. If a site is breaking the law, use the…

I should be able to easily contact the web host and say, "Heads up, your server is doing some bad stuff." This works because hosts don't want to be in business with scum. They take care of it. Because it's the right thing to do, or because they would rather not be involved in a lawsuit, on the wrong side of a PR nightmare. Pretty basic, Internet 101. If I email abuse@cloudflare.com nobody gives a shit. It's irrespons…

Have you tried https://www.cloudflare.com/abuse/

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#115

Post by PegaCorn17 »

rebelde wrote: post #21

So does Cloudflare now get around the slowness of passing through the Great Firewall? (Currently, I don't use CF and our website is slow from inside China.)

Check out the page: www.cloudflare.com/china Their recent partnership with Baidu might help your slowness from inside China.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#116

Post by josh2600 »

rdl wrote: post #104
arscan wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is on that trajectory. But the plan was always to go for the lower market eventually and use the higher end markets to incubate the technology, so I don't know if it counts. I think you just need some serious institutional discipline to make it work. Same deal with SpaceX.

Someone on Twitter suggested Nokia; the entire cellphone market definitely moved from high-cost to high-volume. Nokia was amazingly strong right before smartphones. Even through the smartphone days, they got costs down so the delivered cost of a Nokia phone in Africa was less than Apple pays to ship an iPhone 6S to me from China...

FWIW, minus the Burning Platform memo, it's entirely possible that we could still be looking at Nokia as a large player on the world stage.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#117

Post by Nyr »

manigandham wrote: post #82
Nyr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something which Akamai does and CloudFlare doesn't want to (at the moment): pay big sums to those big ISPs which refuse to peer and want to sell very expensive direct connections.

What does this mean for the company/application using CloudFlare or Akamai? Both services seem to be highly available and very fast from around the world. What does Akamai do here that's better?

Akamai has direct connections to those "difficult" ISPs, CloudFlare uses transit to reach them.

To provide an example: transit to DTAG via GTT (CloudFlare) is always saturated at peak hours. So Akamai has a big advantage (direct connection) if you want to reach Deutsche Telekom customers.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#118

Post by fweespeech »

danielcid wrote: post #101
fweespeech wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mostly listing CDNs and/or DNS services. None of which are "competitors" to what Cloudflare is offering. Akamai and Incapsula are the only real competitors and, tbh, none of them are particularly "good" which is why CloudFlare has been so successful. Sucuri is fine for a corporate blog or the like but it just really isn't usable for a high traffic site with alot of dynamic content.

Curious why you say that of Sucuri? Have you tried us recently? We have some very very large sites using our services now with great performance. During the last 6-12 months we basically rewrote our entire stack, built our anycast network and focused a lot on performance optimization and expanding out services. You can ping me directly if you prefer too. thanks! Daniel Cid (CTO/Founder of Sucuri)

I haven't used it in the last 8 months, so its quite possible this stack rewrite leads to reasonable performance.

However, I'm not going to try it on a production website to see.

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#119

Post by supersan »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #57
brandon272 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was using CloudFlare on a site that has a wide overseas following with a lot of visitors from different continents. I was getting a lot of complaints that the site was terribly slow. When I went back to just serving the site directly from it's server in Atlanta, the complaints ceased. Since then I have been hesitant to use it again.

You get a lot of "testing your browser" delays if you're from certain regions, also the annoying captcha gateway if behind a big mobile NAT that was blacklisted somewhere because of one spammer or maliscious user, or if using some VPNs/Tor especially the free tier VPNs

Oh so that's what it is. I think Namecheap must be using it too because I see this darn message every time I load their site "We're testing if you're human or robot" and it wastes like 10 seconds of my time.

People think that "loading gears" animation on Google blog is annoying, think if it showed up every time for 10 seconds on a company's homepage.

It is the only reason I've considered leaving Namecheap so many times (but haven't because except for this they are better at everything else)

Re: Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm and Baidu Announce Joint Investment in CloudFlare

#120

Post by waffle_ss »

ehPReth wrote: post #110
waffle_ss wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you using CloudFlare for S3 images? Are you using Flexible SSL? The problem I ran into was setting up a CNAME for an S3 bucket requires the bucket name to have periods in it, but https:// access no longer works for buckets with that naming convention[1]. So I ended up having to use CloudFront instead for my images. [1]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/BucketRestri...

There's an alternate URL prefix you can use if your bucket name has periods: http://documents.scribd.com.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/91ltsqq5fk... becomes https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.scribd.com/docs/91ltsqq5f...

If you use s3.amazonaws.com then you aren't using a CNAME anymore, meaning you can't use CloudFlare to accelerate the traffic. CloudFlare needs to control the DNS.
Post reply on HN