I said it is deeply ill-informed. I said this after explaining that I was a Squid developer for many years. I was making a statement based on experience, not pleading a case. If you believe I'm incapable of determining whether a project is god-awful development or not, that's fine.
And then I said that it is insulting to dedicated volunteers. This was not an argument for why Squid is not awful development. I explained that later. I was simply stating that it's insulting.
And, as for this:
"when they're in fact re-doing something solved a decade earlier"
Yeah, in a lot of cases Squid is the "solved a decade earlier" example here.
"built into the operating system they're using, and theirs runs 100x slower than the average naive implementation found by Googling"
If you believe Squid fits this description you're really not qualified to comment on it.
As I said, Squid has many flaws, but it was not designed or developed by children or idiots. It was built by competent software developers who wrote many of the papers on the topics that it addresses, and invented many of the techniques that are now standard in proxy caching software. Varnish takes more ideas from the Squid developers than Squid developers could ever take from Varnish, whether he knows it or not.
Squid does have legacy and baggage. Squid also has capabilities that Varnish would never have need for (ICP, for example, cache digests, hierarchy features, etc.).
As an entrenched-developer in a project, you likely have emotional baggage about your project. You're more likely to unjustly-defend your own project. I probably should've included the used-by-80% portion as well, as it's part of the claim that it's not god-awful.
As I've said, I am not qualified to comment about Squid, nor was I. I was commenting about some / other developers and projects, not pointing a finger in any particular direction, and pretty clearly referring to extreme cases.
I haven't been a Squid developer since 2006. I'm defending it in the same way I would defend Apache, or BIND, or MySQL; and I'm doing so as a Linux/UNIX/Open Source old-timer that remembers what it was like before these projects existed, and realizes how much the developers of these projects have given us over the years. It is an institution for a reason (or a lot of reasons), and the people who built it and currently maintain it are deserving of a modicum of respect. And the software is deserving of an honest assessment of its flaws and strengths, rather than unbacked assertions of being "god-awful" or "1975 technology".
I said it is deeply ill-informed. I said this after explaining that I was a Squid developer for many years. I was making a statement based on experience, not pleading a case. If you believe I'm incapable of determining whether a project is god-awful development or not, that's fine.
And then I said that it is insulting to dedicated volunteers. This was not an argument for why Squid is not awful development. I explained that later. I was simply stating that it's insulting.
And, as for this:
"when they're in fact re-doing something solved a decade earlier"
Yeah, in a lot of cases Squid is the "solved a decade earlier" example here.
"built into the operating system they're using, and theirs runs 100x slower than the average naive implementation found by Googling"
If you believe Squid fits this description you're really not qualified to comment on it.
As I said, Squid has many flaws, but it was not designed or developed by children or idiots. It was built by competent software developers who wrote many of the papers on the topics that it addresses, and invented many of the techniques that are now standard in proxy caching software. Varnish takes more ideas from the Squid developers than Squid developers could ever take from Varnish, whether he knows it or not.
Squid does have legacy and baggage. Squid also has capabilities that Varnish would never have need for (ICP, for example, cache digests, hierarchy features, etc.).
"Insulting it may be, but wrong it may be not."
And I said that it is both.