81–90 of 124 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I do in pools. On my case though I haven't read the TOS. And I would really appreciate a warning. Also, as I have already said, it's not clear when and how you are considered an image proxy. There is no way to know or monitor it. Do you consider any website with images breaking the TOS, or because we have a separate subdomain with images makes this a problem.
I think it's fair that you would appreciate a warning. In the blog post your claim that "small businesses cannot depend on huge providers like google or cloudflare" may or may not be right, but it's absolutely not evidenced by you not reading the TOS. I suppose you're also right that there's no way to monitor whether you would be considered an image proxy. I would appreciate more clarity on that myself. It's extremel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fair that you would appreciate a warning. In the blog post your claim that "small businesses cannot depend on huge providers like google or cloudflare" may or may not be right, but it's absolutely not evidenced by you not reading the TOS. I suppose you're also right that there's no way to monitor whether you would be considered an image proxy. I would appreciate more clarity on that myself. It's extremel…
I agree with your comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is js considered as non-html?
The gist is (to me) clearly that you're not meant to be effectively reselling cloudflare's own service. It's being sold (or given freely) under the assumption that it's largely used to build something else, not to build another CDN. EDIT: There's questions downthread if I've misunderstood ImageBoss's role here. I think ImageBoss was also blocked by CloudFlare recently and separately and is not OP's website. OP's webs…
"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 moved to it. They certainly didn't build it on top of Cloudflare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fair that you would appreciate a warning. In the blog post your claim that "small businesses cannot depend on huge providers like google or cloudflare" may or may not be right, but it's absolutely not evidenced by you not reading the TOS. I suppose you're also right that there's no way to monitor whether you would be considered an image proxy. I would appreciate more clarity on that myself. It's extremel…
I agree with your comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The gist is (to me) clearly that you're not meant to be effectively reselling cloudflare's own service. It's being sold (or given freely) under the assumption that it's largely used to build something else, not to build another CDN. EDIT: There's questions downthread if I've misunderstood ImageBoss's role here. I think ImageBoss was also blocked by CloudFlare recently and separately and is not OP's website. OP's webs…
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…
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/igorescobar_cloudflare-just-b...
Although it is not clear from the blog post, I think what the author did, was to use an old technique for blogs, where you would serve images under many different subdomains. You did this in order to force the web browsers to deeply parallelize the requests, as browsers used to limit to around 4 concurrent requests per domain IIRC. This was pre-HTTP2/QUIC era, and it made a huge difference, as a website could have te…
While the CMS website receive normal visits and serves HTML content, for Cloudflare it's being used mostly to serve images, breaking their ToS. If the customer website was behind Cloudflare and they used their own (sub)domain to serve images they'd probably be fine because that domain would be serving a healthy mix of HTML and media content.
I think both OP and Cloudflare are in the wrong here. OP was using the wrong product for this and Cloudflare didn't give him time to fix the problem, losing a customer in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me one web site where images and video doesn’t count for most of the size. The time of 35k image on a 50k text page is long gone.
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if it's more about their system detecting someone serving almost entirely image requests, versus someone serving 20-40 images per web page, a pattern more consistent with images served alongside a web page.