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

Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

lexx.gr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#101

Post by sophacles »

lexx wrote: post #29
pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

I am not saying I am right. I did break the TOS. They have the right to do what they did. It's just not nice and I don't like them anymore :)

It's not nice that they want you to uphold your end of an agreement?

I sure hope your customers read this comment, they should know that you're likely to defraud them, since it's not "nice" of them to want you do what you agree to.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#103

Post by mynameisvlad »

noncoml wrote: post #99
mynameisvlad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are extremely upfront about this: > 2.8 Limitation on Serving Non-HTML Content > The Services are offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Services solely for the purpose of (i) serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications, including rend…

“a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content is prohibited” 1. It doesn’t help that the “percentage” is ambiguous 2. A couple of days warning or suggestion to move to a higher paying plan would be nice instead of just shutting them down. I’m this case Cloudflare reminds me a quote from Big Lebowski: “You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole.”

The complaint is that Cloudflare was not upfront about this limitation. They are clearly quite upfront. They more or less say exactly what the other commenter accuses them of not being upfront about.

> 1. It doesn’t help that the “percentage” is ambiguous

Would it have mattered? OP said they are using them as an image proxy; that's nearly 100% traffic served. Any way you interpret the word "disproportionate", running an image proxy will trigger.

> 2. A couple of days warning or suggestion to move to a higher paying plan would be nice instead of just shutting them down.

How they choose to handle an issue is also outlined upfront in their ToS. It's not really relevant in the context of this thread.

They may be an asshole, but they straight up told you, the other commenter, and OP exactly what they don't allow and what will happen.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#104

Post by kkielhofner »

furyofantares wrote: post #87
kkielhofner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstood the involvement of imageboss. From the post: "We use Imageboss for all our image manipulation needs. During our migration out of cloudflare we had some difficulties with their service... small businesses like Imageboss were humane, professional and could really help us when we were in need" OP didn't built imageboss or have any relationship with it until they were booted from Cloudflare and…

Thanks for the correction. Looks like ImageBoss was also (separately) blocked which was confusing me. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/igorescobar_cloudflare-just-b...

No worries! After reading your comment I briefly questioned my understanding of the situation and had to re-read the post again to confirm it.

The post leans pretty heavily comes across as a reactionary rant - it could be much clearer on the entire situation.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#105

Post by [deleted] »

lexx wrote: post #29
pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

I am not saying I am right. I did break the TOS. They have the right to do what they did. It's just not nice and I don't like them anymore :)

[deleted]

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#106

Post by quags »

henriquez wrote: post #3

There are better CDNs for image proxies, Stackpath is way nicer than Cloudflare for image hosting and cheap. Plus you don’t have to let them MitM your pages and endpoints.

Stackpath is an excellent alternative. I use stackpath (moved from incapsula after they got bought out) though I still use cloudflare for some areas. Stackpath support is much better than cloudflare in that I can always contact someone and get a response quickly even over live chat so for support stack path wins - really both tend to just work. I prefer stackpath waf over cloudflare. Only network issues I found is there were issues accessing from China which newer not issues on cloudflare. Pricing for cloudflare is flat which for the business and pro plans, and I really like flat fees instead of usage based . where stackpath varies each month based on usage.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#107

Post by dijit »

sp332 wrote: post #100
dijit wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reasoning is poor. Taken to horrible extremes: Slavery has large benefits. Even if not taken to extremes, we're talking about the same argument that erodes privacy; "We need to take away your freedom so that the terrorists can't groom your children and bomb your daycare centers!". I can't even begin to steelman an argument like this, it's just poorly reasoned out.

Alifatisk didn't make any arguments. I didn't make an argument. Not everything is an argument.

argument is anything thats a disagreement.

You literally made an argument against something the parent said.

Discussion can also include “making arguments” even if the discussion itself is not otherwise classified as an argument.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#108

Post by tmikaeld »

judge2020 wrote: post #73
Arnavion wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA explicitly says they're on the Pro plan, ie they're not a free customer. And good job spamming the same incorrect comment in the thread multiple times.

I address that - $200/mo is a lot more than the $20/mo a pro plan costs, which is why upgrading to Business might've been enough, depending on the traffic levels of the service in question. But if your service is pushing terabytes of images or billions of requests, you're costing CF a lot more than they're getting back (in both money and a stronger network presence). Pretty much every booru gets away with paying $200…

Also, using r2 to host the images and a worker to proxy them, is allowed, with unlimited traffic and requests.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#109

Post by noduerme »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #81
noduerme wrote: post #46

Uh, can't cloudflare just choose not to cache images beyond a certain bandwidth limit if they want to? Why throw the customer off the service completely?

You're still accessing the file via their network, so for them it's probably cheaper to actually cache the file so they don't have to hit the origin server every time a request comes in.

So, if they want to penalize a customer, it's pretty trivial for them to route those excessive requests around their cache and directly to the customer's server. Cloudflare can choose to dump a ddos they're mitigating on their customers whenever they feel like it, so why the hell not throttle or redirect their own throughput when it's in their financial interest or people aren't paying enough for it?

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#110

Post by creatonez »

pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

> they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI.

Where? I've never seen it outside of the fine-print legalese.

Post reply on HN