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

Haproxy 2.2

haproxy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#31

Post by somehnguy »

rumanator wrote: post #17
zokier wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> looks like it was designed in the 90s. I think plenty of HNers will see that as a positive aspect.

I understand the nostalgia or liking the retro look, but the site is completely unreadable in mobile. There is absolutely no redeeming quality in that. Claiming that an unreadable version of a site is better than a readable one is simply wrong.

In my opinion a site like this working perfectly on mobile is in the 'who cares' category. Almost nobody is going to haproxy.org on their smartphone with any intention of actually doing anything with the software. Almost nobody is installing or configuring haproxy from mobile.

It's information dense, which is much appreciated on desktop. The .com looks like every other generic 'look at our product!' site, and to actually do anything you have to sort through 5 different dropdowns and other UI items designed to grab your attention.

When I have to install or configure the software I want the .org, 100%.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#33

Post by jazzyjackson »

rumanator wrote: post #30
vbezhenar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are using phones to call and computers to browse the Internet.

What's your point? Are you trying to argue that just because you imagine someone does not have a smartphone then it's ok to fool ourselves to believe that no one has a smartphone? Because mobile has been a basic requirement and competency for, say, the last decade.

basic requirement and competency? Are you the CSS police?

I would've thought allowing user agent style sheets would be a basic requirement for a web browser but it seems that not everyone agrees with me, and sometimes you just have to accept that not everyone is on the same page as you.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#34

Post by bpicolo »

apple4ever wrote: post #25
lukeqsee wrote: post #18

HAProxy is a unique piece of software. I’ve had the privilege to interact directly with Willy (the main developer for many years, still the project lead) on the mailing list, in person at the conference, and even though I’ve never paid a dime, the interaction has been the best open-source experience I’ve ever had. Willy routinely writes multi-paragraph responses on the mailing list to my hair-brained suggestions for…

Why do you choose HAProxy over Ngxinx? It's sounds like you love it, and I have had no experience with HAProxy. So I'm curious about the reasons you love it. (Just to be clear this is a sincere question to learn since tone is hard to express clearly with text.)

One good reason is that HAProxy doesn't payment gate a bunch of the baseline features. I'm still surprised that NGINX doesn't come with active healthchecks in the free version - baseline feature for a load balancer in the world of treating computers as cattle.

HAProxy is such a great example of software that does what you expect, generally.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#35

Post by nine_k »

netcraft wrote: post #19

Slightly OT, we have several different kinds of services that need rate limiting, written in different stacks. We would like to have one solution for rate limiting, ideally that we could put in front of any service, that was light weight, but also could work with AWS target groups that are already splitting traffic across nodes inside a service - so I believe that means some sort of clustered solution or at least com…

I wonder why Envoy is not mentioned.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#36

Post by rumanator »

somehnguy wrote: post #31
rumanator wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the nostalgia or liking the retro look, but the site is completely unreadable in mobile. There is absolutely no redeeming quality in that. Claiming that an unreadable version of a site is better than a readable one is simply wrong.

In my opinion a site like this working perfectly on mobile is in the 'who cares' category. Almost nobody is going to haproxy.org on their smartphone with any intention of actually doing anything with the software. Almost nobody is installing or configuring haproxy from mobile. It's information dense, which is much appreciated on desktop. The .com looks like every other generic 'look at our product!' site, and to actu…

> Almost nobody is going to haproxy.org on their smartphone with any intention of actually doing anything with the software.

This is where you get it entirely wrong. I read this news and I, as an extensive nginx/traffic user, wanted to check out haproxy to understand if it was worth a shot. The .org page is plagued with general usability and readability problems to the point that it's practically unreadable when compared with the page served through the .com domain. There is no way around it.

You don't fix problems by turning a blind eye and playing the denying card. More importantly, this sort of technical snafu is helps form the public image of the product, and thus this sort of poor performance reflects poorly on the product.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#37

Post by rumanator »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #33
rumanator wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Are you trying to argue that just because you imagine someone does not have a smartphone then it's ok to fool ourselves to believe that no one has a smartphone? Because mobile has been a basic requirement and competency for, say, the last decade.

basic requirement and competency? Are you the CSS police? I would've thought allowing user agent style sheets would be a basic requirement for a web browser but it seems that not everyone agrees with me, and sometimes you just have to accept that not everyone is on the same page as you.

> basic requirement and competency? Are you the CSS police?

No, I'm a potential haproxy user who is unable to access the site because whoever put it together either failed to follow basic CSS tutorials or has no idea that there are more reading surfaces than 19' 1980x1080 LCD monitors.

And the surprising thing is that here I am, in HN of all places, where readers are expected to be educated and somewhat informed and with a basic understanding, reading comments like yours. Baffling, to say the least.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#38

Post by emmanueloga_ »

snvzz wrote: post #10

It's amazing how much better the .org site is over the .com.

it is not bad... but in my opinion pretty much every site out there could benefit from a little

    body { max-width: 70rem; margin: 2rem auto; }
... or something similar (pet peeve)

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#39

Post by somehnguy »

rumanator wrote: post #36
somehnguy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion a site like this working perfectly on mobile is in the 'who cares' category. Almost nobody is going to haproxy.org on their smartphone with any intention of actually doing anything with the software. Almost nobody is installing or configuring haproxy from mobile. It's information dense, which is much appreciated on desktop. The .com looks like every other generic 'look at our product!' site, and to actu…

> Almost nobody is going to haproxy.org on their smartphone with any intention of actually doing anything with the software. This is where you get it entirely wrong. I read this news and I, as an extensive nginx/traffic user, wanted to check out haproxy to understand if it was worth a shot. The .org page is plagued with general usability and readability problems to the point that it's practically unreadable when comp…

If you were actually serious about it you would just mentally note it and revisit when you were on a more capable device. Perusing for replacement infrastructure software via mobile is just a casual thing, and foolish if you're actually trying to get anything done.

Nobody is swapping out any tech via their mobile browser impression. All this is pretty complicated software and you're going to want to do a lot of reading/inspection before making decisions like that. That is not done via a 5" display.

I stand with my view that there is no problem to fix here. The site is clear & understandable to anyone who seriously plans on using it or is using it.

Re: Haproxy 2.2

#40

Post by takeda »

apple4ever wrote: post #25
lukeqsee wrote: post #18

HAProxy is a unique piece of software. I’ve had the privilege to interact directly with Willy (the main developer for many years, still the project lead) on the mailing list, in person at the conference, and even though I’ve never paid a dime, the interaction has been the best open-source experience I’ve ever had. Willy routinely writes multi-paragraph responses on the mailing list to my hair-brained suggestions for…

Why do you choose HAProxy over Ngxinx? It's sounds like you love it, and I have had no experience with HAProxy. So I'm curious about the reasons you love it. (Just to be clear this is a sincere question to learn since tone is hard to express clearly with text.)

Why you chose Nginx over HAProxy?

I see a lot of people preferring Nginx, but I can't understand why they are so fascinated about it and try to squeeze it where it has no place. Nginx is just a web server that has some load balancing functionality, it is sub par with HAProxy.

I never seen people saying why are you using HAProxy instead of Apache, but Nginx load balancing functionality is closer to Apache than HAProxy.

Post reply on HN