It's amazing how much better the .org site is over the .com.
body { max-width: 70rem; margin: 2rem auto; }
I think plenty of HNers will see that as a positive aspect.
Claiming that an unreadable version of a site is better than a readable one is simply wrong.
Because mobile has been a basic requirement and competency for, say, the last decade.
I would've thought allowing user agent style sheets would be a basic requirement for a web browser but it seems that not everyone agrees with me, and sometimes you just have to accept that not everyone is on the same page as you.
No, I'm a potential haproxy user who is unable to access the site because whoever put it together either failed to follow basic CSS tutorials or has no idea that there are more reading surfaces than 19' 1980x1080 LCD monitors.
And the surprising thing is that here I am, in HN of all places, where readers are expected to be educated and somewhat informed and with a basic understanding, reading comments like yours. Baffling, to say the least.
https://i.imgur.com/Zmslysb.jpg
The text in the navigation section and the table is a bit small, but quite far from unreadable. That can also easily be solved by zooming in.
On the topic of mobile, I think it is also very important to look at data usage.
~327KB for all assets on haproxy.org ~5.8MB for all assets on haproxy.com including nearly a megabyte of javascript
It's information dense, which is much appreciated on desktop. The .com looks like every other generic 'look at our product!' site, and to actually do anything you have to sort through 5 different dropdowns and other UI items designed to grab your attention.
When I have to install or configure the software I want the .org, 100%.
This is where you get it entirely wrong. I read this news and I, as an extensive nginx/traffic user, wanted to check out haproxy to understand if it was worth a shot. The .org page is plagued with general usability and readability problems to the point that it's practically unreadable when compared with the page served through the .com domain. There is no way around it.
You don't fix problems by turning a blind eye and playing the denying card. More importantly, this sort of technical snafu is helps form the public image of the product, and thus this sort of poor performance reflects poorly on the product.
Nobody is swapping out any tech via their mobile browser impression. All this is pretty complicated software and you're going to want to do a lot of reading/inspection before making decisions like that. That is not done via a 5" display.
I stand with my view that there is no problem to fix here. The site is clear & understandable to anyone who seriously plans on using it or is using it.