Live data from Hacker News

Cdnjs - the missing cdn

cdnjs.com

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#51

"This page ( http://cdnjs.com/ ) is currently offline. However, because the site uses CloudFlare's Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site." Well, that's hardly comforting.

FWIW, the libraries they host still seem to be getting served normally, so that’s a good thing.

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#52

"This page ( http://cdnjs.com/ ) is currently offline. However, because the site uses CloudFlare's Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site." Well, that's hardly comforting.

FWIW, the libraries they host still seem to be getting served normally, so that’s a good thing.

Sort of. I'm still not sure I want to use a CDN that can't keep its main site up.

How do I know their .js files won't expire out of the CloudFlare cache before the site comes up, for example?

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#53
post #4

That's pretty awesome! I've always wondered why popular css grids weren't also CDN'd. Bootstrap, 960, etc, etc - it makes great sense to have many of these things cached across 100s of sites 1 time - instead of 100 times. Modify the cdn version in a seperate style sheet afterwards.

http://www.bootstrapcdn.com/

This seems to work well for me.

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#54
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately he is in vast minority. Only when you start using NoScript or generally paying more attention to your browser's status bar do you start to realise the scale of the ridiculousness.

If I ever ran a media site, I'd redirect noscript users to this: "We love that you've come to value the great material we provide, but we make money off of advertizers. If you run noscript, that's great! We totally support noscript options for those who purchase a subscription plan."

Subscriptions would not support the development costs of that.

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#55
I always prefer compiling and gzipping the whole site's assets to just one .js and one .css file and serve them through CloudFront. It's usually around 100-200 KB and CloudFront's latency is very low at most places.

This saves a lot of requests and waiting time between page loads (i.e. the first page is always slower, but subsequent page loads take almost no time because there're very few (or even just 1) requests needed to make.)

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I ever ran a media site, I'd redirect noscript users to this: "We love that you've come to value the great material we provide, but we make money off of advertizers. If you run noscript, that's great! We totally support noscript options for those who purchase a subscription plan."

Subscriptions would not support the development costs of that.

Ars Technica seems to be doing fine with it. http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/#features

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does using CDNs make you distrust a website? If someone is loading jquery.min.js from Google shouldn't you trust it more ?

When I have see that a webpage has 20 or more scripts attached to it from domains differing from the one website I am visiting, I do by default assume they are tracking scripts from advertisers or facebook or similar ilk. If a website needs scripts, I expect the website to serve it from a domain which belongs to it. For most sites I visit there are at least 30, sometimes 50 scripts from various sites and domains tryi…

Install ScriptNo in Chrome (or similar for Firefox). You will be shocked by the difference.

Yes, I would be shocked to be browsing the web circa 1995. Which is why I use a modern browser that supports modern technologies. I also use Ghostery with a whitelist to block tracking. That way, sites work like they should and I can browse this decade's Internet without having to go on forums and let everyone know I'm important and I'm special and every web app should work on Lynx because I said so.

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I have see that a webpage has 20 or more scripts attached to it from domains differing from the one website I am visiting, I do by default assume they are tracking scripts from advertisers or facebook or similar ilk. If a website needs scripts, I expect the website to serve it from a domain which belongs to it. For most sites I visit there are at least 30, sometimes 50 scripts from various sites and domains tryi…

Install ScriptNo in Chrome (or similar for Firefox). You will be shocked by the difference. Yes, I would be shocked to be browsing the web circa 1995. Which is why I use a modern browser that supports modern technologies. I also use Ghostery with a whitelist to block tracking. That way, sites work like they should and I can browse this decade's Internet without having to go on forums and let everyone know I'm importa…

My point was not that all scripts are evil, but if you want me to trust your site, then dont require me to trust 50 domains I do not know for a minescule 10ms potential performance improvement.

I find that a perfectly reasonable attitude.

Re: Cdnjs - the missing cdn

#59

For every one of these CDNs you use, chances that people with scriptblockers will use your site goes down. When I see that a site tries to resolve scripts from 50 domains, for what should really just be static HTML, I generally leave. So please. Don't use CDNs. If you want people to trust you, host your own damn stuff on your own domain.

To everyone else replying, i think it's using a whole bunch of different cdns he's complaining about.

Having that many disparat cdns is a net loss anyways by the time you do dns lookup on each one, you've lost the latency savings.

Post reply on HN