3 ms·
Feels like a rip off (in name), but the features and difference in limitations vs let's encrypt are interesting! I say, let the competition in! Probably only (
by fideloper 10y ago
Feels like a rip off (in name), but the features and difference in limitations vs let's encrypt are interesting!
I say, let the competition in! Probably only (mostly) good things will result.
- imaginenore 10y agoIt's a free product. It would be better to spend dev time improving LetsEncrypt, rather than start another one from scratch.
- regecks 10y agoWell, not necessarily. Let's Encrypt gave us the ACME protocol. Would be nice if we started seeing competing implementations of that.
- duskwuff 10y agoCompeting implementations of which part? There's already a number of clients out there.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- kevincox 10y agoI think he's talking about the server. The only two servers I'm aware of is the LE server and the LE staging server which both run the same software. It would be really cool to get another CA giving out certs using the protocol.
- duskwuff 10y agoOh, absolutely. Enabling other CAs to use the ACME protocol* for certificate provisioning was an explicit goal during its development. As such, it's incredibly disappointing that Startcom decided to build their own incompatible solution here. *: Yes, that's really what it's called. Stands for "Automatic Certificate Management Environment".
- herbst 10y agoIts not like LetsEncrypt is the optimal solution. Especially the heavy python client and the 90days limit sucks.
- duskwuff 10y agoThere are other clients available. My personal favorite is acme-tiny: https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny https://github.com/diafygi/acme-tiny The 90 day validity limit is intentional. It's there to encourage users to automate the renewal process.