2 ms·

The "ads" were a simple Caddy-Sponsors header being sent on every HTTP response, containing the string "This free web server is made possible by its sponsors: M

The "ads" were a simple Caddy-Sponsors header being sent on every HTTP response, containing the string "This free web server is made possible by its sponsors: Minio, Uptime Robot, and Sourcegraph". It could be removed (legally, the license allows it) by compiling from source. This whole thing was largely a non-issue, and overblown. The bigger issue that came with it was a website redesign that was fairly misleading (it looked like Caddy was going to be closed source), but when it was pointed out, it was clarified to clearly point out that Caddy is a Free and Open Source Software. To me, this reinforced my trust in the project. They went the wrong way, people didn't like it, they fixed it. The fact that, in today's world, a single misstep generates an immediate and irrevocable loss of trust, even when that misstep is quickly corrected and apologies are issued, is incredibly weird to me. It pushes people to hide their mistakes instead of being open about them... Disclaimer: I'm a happy user of Caddy, using self-built binaries. I'll take this chance to thank the developers behind Caddy. You have made my life a lot easier :).

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
> The fact that, in today's world, a single misstep generates an immediate and irrevocable loss of trust, even when that misstep is quickly corrected and apologies are issued, is incredibly weird to me. It pushes people to hide their mistakes instead of being open about them... This happened in the past too. What people did in the past was "move to another town", but in the age of the Internet you can't really run away from your public gaffes. In this particular case, it's commendable that Caddy reversed course on the ads. However, many people's first exposure to Caddy was this ad story and it is extremely hard to change first impressions.
reacharavindh 8y ago
Hi. I did not mean to judge the software itself. It probably is very good. I was only airing my concern when a mistake of this kind was made. It is not this specific thing that was reverted that prompted several people to voice their concern - it is this category of mistake. If the author thinks it is okay to pin up an ad to the headers, what other silly and immature things would the author like to do in future?! That is the line of thought that puts me off. This is not to say people don't correct their mistakes. I will of course take this software on its merit, but as I said in my original comment, I will now be extra careful before choosing this software for anything I care deeply about, and if I don't have such time, I simply will take the hard way and use something else. A mistake like this does not provoke irrevocable loss of trust to me. This category of mistake warrants a big red beware sign in front of the product. I don't think that's bad.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

> The fact that, in today's world, a single misstep generates an immediate and irrevocable loss of trust, even when that misstep is quickly corrected and apologies are issued, is incredibly weird to me. It pushes people to hide their mistakes instead of being open about them... This happened in the past too. What people did in the past was "move to another town", but in the age of the Internet you can't really run away from your public gaffes. In this particular case, it's commendable that Caddy reversed course on the ads. However, many people's first exposure to Caddy was this ad story and it is extremely hard to change first impressions.

reacharavindh 8y ago

Hi. I did not mean to judge the software itself. It probably is very good. I was only airing my concern when a mistake of this kind was made. It is not this specific thing that was reverted that prompted several people to voice their concern - it is this category of mistake. If the author thinks it is okay to pin up an ad to the headers, what other silly and immature things would the author like to do in future?! That is the line of thought that puts me off. This is not to say people don't correct their mistakes. I will of course take this software on its merit, but as I said in my original comment, I will now be extra careful before choosing this software for anything I care deeply about, and if I don't have such time, I simply will take the hard way and use something else. A mistake like this does not provoke irrevocable loss of trust to me. This category of mistake warrants a big red beware sign in front of the product. I don't think that's bad.