top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 83 points 4 months ago

That's actually a very bad gateway if it's still running an nginx from 2010.

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Mine gave 418 so I shoved a teabag in and poured water on it

    It still doesn't work

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Now I’m tempted to finally replace that default page with this one 🤣

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This one is at least as informative as the default. Sometimes I'll be troubleshooting an application where the developers got a little too creative with error messages and I'll get an "Error: Oopsie woopsie you broke the website!" And I'm like JUST GIVE ME AN ERROR CODE I'M THE ADMINISTRATOR AND I NEED TO ACTUALLY FIX THIS!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago
    [–] 33 points 4 months ago

    Of cause it's a bad gateway, look at it. Doesn't even look like a real Cisco router.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago
    [–] 13 points 4 months ago

    I need to change my default bad gateway html to this at one point.

    Idk if it's possible using NPM

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Should have used a Gateway computer from like 2003.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    This tab made me think my instance was down again.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    More like bad proxy/load balancer, imo, but sure.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah. Revealing the name and version of the software that is interacting with the network is indeed bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (7 children)