61–70 of 132 posts
I'm an avid user of Caddy but I think the more time it passes and the more opinionated it gets, the worse it becomes overall. I don't object to highly opinionated takes but when your biggest selling point is how neat the configuration is to write it becomes more of a pain when it just isn't anymore. Two examples from my experience upgrading from Caddy 1 to Caddy 2: Ex.1: Caddy 1 by default bound to an arbitrary port…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The automatic HTTPS feature of Caddy is a game changer. I enabled it once on a server five years ago and never had to take a second look. I am surprised that this is not a standard feature of all web servers. There is no way I am fighting with certbot (or whatever the recommended software is) anymore. That being said, the rest of the software is not as amazing. Please nginx, could you add automatic HTTPS so I can dit…
What is not as amazing?
- The weird license debacle.
- The weird ads in headers debacle.
- I had trouble with advanced usage that should have worked but were not flexible enough, like acting as a cache.
- The marketing rubbed me the wrong way. It was pointing the deficiencies in other established FOSS web servers, basically treating them as relics while Caddy itself had 10% of their features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly what the original complaint was: Someone complains that Caddy is slower than the options, and the official response is not neither agreement nor giving data to show that Caddy is fast, but equivocating about whether it matters while avoiding commenting on whether the claim is true. If you want to ship a webserver that's slower but safer and easy to use, that's fine ; I'm using Caddy to host my stuff b…
The claim can't be evaluated as "true or false", which is the point. The use cases for Caddy and similar software are too broad to be meaningfully approximated as a binary or scalar value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being unduly defensive. mholt is telling you that he can't provide meaningful general purpose performance numbers because the breadth of cases for Caddy vary too widely, so he's asking you for information about your specific use case so he can give you the very information you're complaining about not being able to access, but you're being cagey about sharing those requirements. You're certainly within your ri…
> but you're being cagey about sharing those requirements. I don’t have one single set of requirements for every location I use a web server. Nobody does. If Caddy is good for one thing but not so good for other things, why is it so hard to come out and say that? Also, the benchmark I was questioning in the opening comment came from mholt on the official community forum. It’s mind boggling that I’m getting attacked f…
Right, you have to analyze each case separately. There's no way to meaningfully quantify performance across all cases.
> If Caddy is good for one thing but not so good for other things, why is it so hard to come out and say that?
Perhaps because that doesn't tell you anything? You can post microbenchmarks for very specific use cases but almost everyone extrapolates way too much from microbenchmarks and the folks who don't will tell you that microbenchmarks are virtually useless.
> It’s mind boggling that I’m getting attacked
Oh grief, you're not being "attacked". You're being melodramatic. I don't have a dog in this fight, I was just trying to clarify the conversation. If you're bent on reacting to a distorted perception of the conversation, there's not much I can do about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's hard for us to hit a performance target that is being kept hidden from the devs.
This shouldn't be downvoted--it's very true, what performance are you trying to optimize? Throughput of long connections? Time from connection to first bytes? There are dozens of dimensions to web performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being unduly defensive. mholt is telling you that he can't provide meaningful general purpose performance numbers because the breadth of cases for Caddy vary too widely, so he's asking you for information about your specific use case so he can give you the very information you're complaining about not being able to access, but you're being cagey about sharing those requirements. You're certainly within your ri…
> but you're being cagey about sharing those requirements. I don’t have one single set of requirements for every location I use a web server. Nobody does. If Caddy is good for one thing but not so good for other things, why is it so hard to come out and say that? Also, the benchmark I was questioning in the opening comment came from mholt on the official community forum. It’s mind boggling that I’m getting attacked f…
You want performance metrics, but can't even tell us what metrics matter to you, but expect Matt and Caddy team to have them just available... You understand that your responses here are directly proving his point on not having them, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is not as amazing?
I have not kept up with Caddy in a long while, so take with a grain of salt: - The weird license debacle. - The weird ads in headers debacle. - I had trouble with advanced usage that should have worked but were not flexible enough, like acting as a cache. - The marketing rubbed me the wrong way. It was pointing the deficiencies in other established FOSS web servers, basically treating them as relics while Caddy itsel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is not as amazing?
I have not kept up with Caddy in a long while, so take with a grain of salt: - The weird license debacle. - The weird ads in headers debacle. - I had trouble with advanced usage that should have worked but were not flexible enough, like acting as a cache. - The marketing rubbed me the wrong way. It was pointing the deficiencies in other established FOSS web servers, basically treating them as relics while Caddy itsel…
Those issues are a thing of the past. There's no use bringing it up again, tbh.
> like acting as a cache
That's fair, we have a WIP cache module here https://github.com/caddyserver/cache-handler, it should be ready soon!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim can't be evaluated as "true or false", which is the point. The use cases for Caddy and similar software are too broad to be meaningfully approximated as a binary or scalar value.
I'm pretty sure you can approximate it to true - are there any cases where Caddy is faster than another webserver in the same usecase, with either default or tweaked configs on both?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still waiting to hear your performance requirements btw. I suppose this encapsulates why I get turned off of Caddy every time I look into it: Basic concerns (including questions about approximate performance) are met with suggestions that I don’t know what I want and therefore I’m not qualified to make such judgments.
You're being unduly defensive. mholt is telling you that he can't provide meaningful general purpose performance numbers because the breadth of cases for Caddy vary too widely, so he's asking you for information about your specific use case so he can give you the very information you're complaining about not being able to access, but you're being cagey about sharing those requirements. You're certainly within your ri…
It's not what he's saying, but how he's saying it. "I'm still waiting to hear your performance requirements btw.", is a condescending, dismissive tone that would put more people off than not. Especially considering it was a reply within just a couple minutes of his initial question.