[oliwarner]

Right, and if you stuck that behind (eg) Cloudflare via cloudflared, it'd be faster for your readers, more secure for you (no direct access) and have no impact on your network or NAS's resources.

Right tools for the job. It's not a failing to use a cache.

[madeofpalk]

You don't even need cloudflare! If your blog is only updated infrequently (>1/day), serving what is essentially static text should not be difficult.

[muppetman]

I can't wait for the day clownfare suddenly put a price on this stuff they've been giving everyone for free. I find it hilarious people who get 200 hits a day on their blog think they need it.

[oliwarner]

That's right but I'm not making an argument of necessity.

I'm saying it's better for both you and your users to keep network traffic at a proper CDN than a home ISP network. It'll be faster for everyone.

[1oooqooq]

except cache is broken on most browsers thanks to https

still better than giving up to cloudflare

[madeofpalk]

This is the second time today I've read a HN comment saying that HTTPS and caching are incompatible.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand what you're saying (it seems obviously incorrect?)

[1oooqooq]

visit any page which should be cached. click any link. unplug. click back. dead end instead of cached page.

cache only works on https for extra assets. which is useless if you have a simple static site anyway

[duckmysick]

I just tested it. Can't replicate.

Went to https://example.com, checked that it's cached in the inspector, clicked on the More information link which leads to https://www.iana.org/domains/example, unplugged my connection (went offline), clicked back. It showed the cached https://example.com. I clicked forward. It showed the cached https://www.iana.org/domains/example page. Clicked back/forward like a maniac, the pages switched seamlessly.

Repeated the same process on a non-cacheable page, it showed a dud when disconnected as expected.

Tested on Firefox and Chromium.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

What? No it isn’t.