Depends whose security. I value my security dearly and that's why i use the Tor Browser. Cloudflare has decided i cannot browse any of their websites if i care about my security (they filter out tor users and archiving bots agressively) so i'm not using any cloudflare-powered website. Is it good for security that we prevent people from using security-oriented tooling, and let a single multinational corporation decide who gets to enter a website or not? In my book creating a SPOF is already bad practice, but having them filter out entrances is even worse.
Also, are all of these CDNs and other cloud providers are solving the right problems?
If you want your service to be resilient against DDOS attacks, you don't need such huge infrastructure. I've seen WP site operators move to Cloudflare because they had no caching in place, let alone a static site.
If you want better connectivity in remote places where our optic fiber overlords haven't invested yet, P2P technology has much better guarantees than a CDN (content-addressing, no SPOF). IPFS/dat/Freenet/Bittorrent... even multicast can be used for spreading content far and wide.
Why do sysadmins want/use CDNs? Can't we find better solutions? Solutions that are more respectful to spiders and privacy-minding folks with NoScript and/or Tor Browser?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718752
Only discovered we should not forget,due to the good graces of google project zero.
A certain those of skepticism towards any technical offer out there would be advised.
Fastly's free offering gives you "$50 worth of traffic" whereas Cloudflare has a perpetually free option. And for Akamai you have to apply for a free trial.
So if it would go down, it would cripple vast amount of internet.
