[tptacek]

Why would someone apologize for writing an informative blog post? I'm glad he wrote both, even if he had to walk the first one back a bit.

[SnowLprd]

I found both posts informative, and yet I'm with cbetz on this one. The issue isn't whether Matt's first post was informative but is instead whether it was fair|wise|necessary to say "Nginx sucks at SSL" instead of, say, "My initial testing, which needs to be investigated further, is showing Nginx SSL performance lower than other alternatives." The first headline is more likely to grab folks' attention, which is probably why Matt chose that headline. It is probably that choice that cbetz finds objectionable, and if so, I agree with him.

[pyre]

  > "My initial testing, which needs to be investigated
  > further, is showing Nginx SSL performance lower than
  > other alternatives."

You keep using that word ('headline'), but I do not think it means what you think it means.

[SnowLprd]

Okay, I'll bite. Here you go: "Initial Tests Show Slow Nginx SSL Performance" Wasn't that hard, was it?

[pyre]

My point was that you seemed to have purposely made that 'headline' that you thought he should have used needlessly verbose, to the point where it couldn't be considered a headline.