3.0 KiB
title: Webdevs using CDNs are absolutely retarded author: 寮 date: 2022-04-13 20:53:35 tags: blog,technology,webdev
https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/92083/local-files-vs-cdn
Reading through the answers here, I wonder if with the exception of the user called "cari", those so-called "webmasters" even know what the hell they're even talking about.
Cari is the only one who's spot on, should have deserved far more upvotes IMO.
Everyone else is more like "CDN good, local bad", and CodyA is especially ironic by sourcing the reason why CDNs should be used...from a CDN provider.
Like how we should believe a government funded study that shows that for every government created problem the solution is more government, according to the government.
The CDN should be used for all static files (.css/.js/images).
How about self-hosting static files?
Oh wait, because CSS and JS files these days are so insanely bloated, because soydevs make use of worst possible tools to generate them rather than writing them by hand like a web developer.
As for images, nobody likes JPEGs, so PNGs of at least 4000x3000 each must be used.
Now there's a problem: "files are too big, I need to save bandwidth, so I'll just host them on CDNs instead of optimizing these files".
Other benefits from using a CDN would be that the CDN server would most likely be located closer to your end users then your origin which will benefit loading times.
Any thoughts on how that CDN server knows which server is closer by?
Isn't that basically you admitting that Big Brother is watching you?
No need to break down CodyA's comment, as it's just a remix of Analog.
Use a CDN if you need a CDN.
And when is that?
If your user is global and spread over a large area
Ah, I see.
But why?
or you have a lot of such content that you don't want to store on your own server
Alright, so you prove my point that soydev files are just too bloated.
So why not fix your shit rather than relying on services that only make the problems worse?
Globally, it can speed up access to your content if the server is closer to the user.
Yet another copy/paste from Analog and CodyA.
If you have many GB or Terabytes of static data and a heavy load for access to that content, a CDN can help with that.
Again, optimize your own files.
If you need many GB or TB (or even MB for that matter) of static data in the first place, then it means you're doing something horribly wrong.
Unless you have a very good excuse, a single webpage should never exceed 4 MB, including ASSets.
One exception I can make is video files, simply because there's just nothing you can do about that.
But those fuckers should never be autoplay and never with controls hidden.
However, small, local sites or lightly loaded sites rarely need such things and a CDN can only add one more complication to your set up, operation and workflow, such as caching problems.
Thank you!
Too often I see people use a CDN cause they read they should be using one and no other reason.
yup.