Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yellowapple 1341 days ago
> There's a reason Cloudflare doesn't allow large video files either - even though that probably counts even more as "web content".

And that's just as nonsensical. Bytes are bytes; the rationale should be based on bandwidth, not on arbitrary micromanagement of the format of the data consuming that bandwidth. If I encode that video in a giant self-contained blob of JavaScript that feeds the pixels into a canvas or something similarly ridiculous, does that magically fix the bandwidth issues?
1 comments
manigandham 1341 days ago
No. It is about excessive resources/bandwidth usage. The customer service response reply isn't great but the context itself is clear because this file is clearly not for displaying any part of the web presence of the easylist site.

Again this is that "pedantic technicality" - why such a fuss when the actual issue is straightforward, and also clearly understood and reiterated by the easylist team themselves in the post?

link
yellowapple 1341 days ago
> It is about excessive resources/bandwidth usage.

Then the policy would focus on that rather than micromanage the format of the data using those resources/bandwidth. Again: bytes are bytes.

> why such a fuss

Because a policy as nonsensical as "no non-HTML files allowed" artificially limits the usefulness of CloudFlare for precisely zero legitimate reason. I ask again: does wrapping a video in a blob of JavaScript fix the bandwidth issues associated with hosting videos? If I have a 10MB MP3 downloaded 1,000 times v. a 1MB HTML/CSS/JS static site downloaded 10,000 times, what difference does it make?

link
archi42 1341 days ago
The difference is in the amount of cache you need. In one case you save 10GB per 1MB of cache, in the other just 1GB per 1MB and the big file is going to evict many small files (even if the user only listens to the first 10s). It's no huge difference for a single user/site, but across all users this quickly means needing a multiple of the current cache; which doesn't come for free.

Also, CF have a product to sell. The free tier is just the demo version: I think at the end of the day the policy is about not everyone in HN using CF for their low-cost DIY video and/or music streaming or download platform.

And I can totally see them reverse the decision and sponsor that project (it's probably something a support engineer has no power to decide).

link
yellowapple 1341 days ago
> The difference is in the amount of cache you need.

Okay, now run the same thought experiment with 10,000 downloads of a 1MB MP3 v. 10,000 downloads of a 1MB HTML/CSS/JS site. What difference then?

link
thayne 1341 days ago
So have a max file size.

Also, the same ToS applies if you use the paid product. Unless you buy an additional addon for non-web traffic.

link
manigandham 1340 days ago
The issue is about bandwidth and resources. The policy is generic to provide reasonable allowances but stop usage that's clearly outside the limits. That's how "unlimited but with oversight" plans work.
link
LawTalkingGuy 1341 days ago
So the solution is to HTML the list and link it from the webpage?

> why such a fuss

Mockery isn't a fuss. And why? Because we can all picture having to deal with just this sort of idiot and their pet rule.

link