4 ms·

> I would probably not be wrong when saying that most Linux users will happily pay a developer for the binary of an application if the dev is "doing it right".

> I would probably not be wrong when saying that most Linux users will happily pay a developer for the binary of an application if the dev is "doing it right". Hm, this reminds me of the Caddy, the HTTP server with Let's Encrypt integration. It's still open source, but a while ago they made the binaries paid (if you want it for free you need to compile it yourself). They got a lot hate for that; people were even accusing them of having become closed source.

zaarn 8y ago
I stopped used Caddy on that event. It wasn't purely for the binary, the server also has a number of issues when mainly used as a proxy and a number of other problems for more advanced use cases. I think the problem really is, atleast what I thought, was that the binary wasn't something I'd pay for. I could trivially compile it myself. Additionally the price was IIRC quite high for some hobbyists like myself. Plus putting advertisements in the header (or was that a separate event?) If it had been a 10$/a license for the binary I would likely have done that but at the time it seemed cheaper to just switch to nginx. Also keep in mind the different audience. There is server admins and developers. When I wear my server admin hat and license software, that is usually because there is no or not comparable free alternatives that I couldn't setup myself in a few hours of work. When I wear my developer hat I'm lazy and I will pay for software to save a few minutes of work if it's good enough. Of course, I don't agree with the people who said it had become closed source, that is silly.
detaro 8y ago
I think the Caddy mess had a bunch of factors complicating it, and isn't a good comparison. E.g. they promoted themselves as an easy and powerful solution for people that aren't really sysadmin/server types, and then hurt that exact demographic by from one day to the other requiring them to either pay a not-insignificant amount of money or learn how to compile a product they choose because it's really easy themselves. People really don't like bait-and-switch.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I cannot see someone trying to get paid for their work as a "bait and switch".
  - detaro 8y ago
    Then see it only as "surprising and major change, negating the previous unique selling point, makes people unhappy".
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      I can't really see it as that, either. The source is still open, it's free to check out and compile.
      - detaro 8y ago
        > free to check out and compile Which isn't a problem for you and me, but is for the kind of person that was attracted to it because it's easier than nginx+certbot, as I said in my initial comment. I saw 2 major users of it: this kind of user, and people wanting a small simple thing to stick in their container-based setup for HTTPS/reverse proxy duties. The latter more or less automatically updated to container images that do the build instead of loading a binary and didn't have a problem with even having to consider paying. For the first it was a problem, especially since the cost wasn't really in the ballpark of "I'd happily pay that to host a small blog".
foepys 8y ago
And then when Let's Encrypt's certificate renewal server was down for a few hours, Caddy wasn't able to start because it required to establish a connection with LE to check the certificate and it wasn't able to determine that there was an old, still valid cert available on disk. The bug tracker on Github went wild because people were unable to bring their websites back up but the author was unwilling to acknowledge it as a bug and kept closing the issues. [1] That was when Caddy lost all its reputation for me. 1: https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1680 https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1680
- jjnoakes 8y ago
  I am not on any side in this battle, but the issue was closed only once, and after users disagreed with the author's reasoning for why it behaved the way it did, the author fixed it the same day it was closed... Doesn't seem as bad as you are portraying it... certainly not "lost all its reputation for [you]" bad?

zaarn 8y ago

I stopped used Caddy on that event. It wasn't purely for the binary, the server also has a number of issues when mainly used as a proxy and a number of other problems for more advanced use cases. I think the problem really is, atleast what I thought, was that the binary wasn't something I'd pay for. I could trivially compile it myself. Additionally the price was IIRC quite high for some hobbyists like myself. Plus putting advertisements in the header (or was that a separate event?) If it had been a 10$/a license for the binary I would likely have done that but at the time it seemed cheaper to just switch to nginx. Also keep in mind the different audience. There is server admins and developers. When I wear my server admin hat and license software, that is usually because there is no or not comparable free alternatives that I couldn't setup myself in a few hours of work. When I wear my developer hat I'm lazy and I will pay for software to save a few minutes of work if it's good enough. Of course, I don't agree with the people who said it had become closed source, that is silly.

detaro 8y ago

I think the Caddy mess had a bunch of factors complicating it, and isn't a good comparison. E.g. they promoted themselves as an easy and powerful solution for people that aren't really sysadmin/server types, and then hurt that exact demographic by from one day to the other requiring them to either pay a not-insignificant amount of money or learn how to compile a product they choose because it's really easy themselves. People really don't like bait-and-switch.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I cannot see someone trying to get paid for their work as a "bait and switch".
- detaro 8y ago
  Then see it only as "surprising and major change, negating the previous unique selling point, makes people unhappy".
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I can't really see it as that, either. The source is still open, it's free to check out and compile.
    - detaro 8y ago
      > free to check out and compile Which isn't a problem for you and me, but is for the kind of person that was attracted to it because it's easier than nginx+certbot, as I said in my initial comment. I saw 2 major users of it: this kind of user, and people wanting a small simple thing to stick in their container-based setup for HTTPS/reverse proxy duties. The latter more or less automatically updated to container images that do the build instead of loading a binary and didn't have a problem with even having to consider paying. For the first it was a problem, especially since the cost wasn't really in the ballpark of "I'd happily pay that to host a small blog".

foepys 8y ago

And then when Let's Encrypt's certificate renewal server was down for a few hours, Caddy wasn't able to start because it required to establish a connection with LE to check the certificate and it wasn't able to determine that there was an old, still valid cert available on disk. The bug tracker on Github went wild because people were unable to bring their websites back up but the author was unwilling to acknowledge it as a bug and kept closing the issues. [1] That was when Caddy lost all its reputation for me. 1: https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1680 https://github.com/mholt/caddy/issues/1680

jjnoakes 8y ago
I am not on any side in this battle, but the issue was closed only once, and after users disagreed with the author's reasoning for why it behaved the way it did, the author fixed it the same day it was closed... Doesn't seem as bad as you are portraying it... certainly not "lost all its reputation for [you]" bad?