Re:A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
by SahAssar on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @02:01PM
(#31006178)
The term 'battle tested' has nothing to do with amount of features, it's about how proven the stability and/or security of the included features included are. The term also usually carries a heavy weight towards older systems that have been used in production for a long time since those have had more time to weather bugs that are only caught in real-world use.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
by bornfreddy on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @02:12PM
(#31006340)
Also, https is often dealt with on a different server (load balancer for example).
Re:A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
by jart on Tuesday April 12, 2022 @11:11PM
(#31010811)
Yes but it's nice to have the SSL built-in for when you want it. Web servers like Varnish and thttpd take a really hard stance on the issue, where they don't want to touch the crypto at all. Honestly, I don't blame them because implementing SSL is prodigiously technical and emotional. One of the things I do is I offer a file called redbean-unsecure.com that has zero-security baked-in so that folks who love redbean but want to handle the security separately themselves can do so. But like I said when we don't have strong opinions on separation of concerns, having a fast snappy tiny zero config SSL is nice.