[nilsb]

At first glance this looks like a site that should be easily cacheable, at least for non-logged-in users.

Also, I'm surprised this isn't using HTTPS.

[ramesh31]

Welcome to the web of 2004. It was a magical place full of uncached PHP applications, raw exposed MySQL servers, and nary an SSL cert in sight.

[kazinator]

You could easily take a server that has not been upgraded since 2004 and put it behind a reverse proxy (e.g. Apache) that gives it a SSL with up-to-date crypto.

[ramesh31]

>You could easily take a server that has not been upgraded since 2004 and put it behind a reverse proxy (e.g. Apache) that gives it a SSL with up-to-date crypto.

You sure could. You could also run it as a flat file CMS hosted across multiple fallback cloud storage providers and cached out to a global edge CDN.

But that’s web scale. The internet used to be human scale.

[kazinator]

What I'm describing just requires a single web server like Apache, with less than half a dozen lines of config to delegate a certain page or domain to the old server via reverse proxying. Did you see the word "reverse proxy" and start thinking about CloudFare and such?

[cpurdy]

Yes, but it makes up for the lack of HTTPS by using plain text passwords.

/s

(Sorry, I initially forgot the sarcasm indicator.)