3 ms·

> I mean, we're talking about a task scheduler here. Not just that, the certbot tooling as well, which can be arbitrarily flaky. > Is this a Temple OS situati

> I mean, we're talking about a task scheduler here. Not just that, the certbot tooling as well, which can be arbitrarily flaky. > Is this a Temple OS situation? And so what if it is? Why shouldn't someone be able to run a website on Temple OS, or a 68K Mac, or whatever, if he wishes? > But if minimal complexity is what the author wants, they should consider building a static site and deploying it, say, using GitHub Pages, which supports SSL out of the box right now. He wants to publish his own site, not engage someone to publish it for him. As you quote below, he objects to outside control. If one hosts one's site on GitHub Pages, then one is beholden to their rules and standards.

notafraudster 5y ago
The author can want whatever the author wants, as I say repeatedly, it's just not of interest to me as a reader if the author is backed into a corner by a series of bizarre lines in the sand on his part. The author is responding to a discourse that says "You should serve your website SSL-enabled" in a passionate enough way to write a blog post about why he shouldn't, and it turns out the reason why he shouldn't is more or less that he doesn't want to. OK. Cool. The choice to want to control everything (except all the things you don't fully control, like the domain name, the DNS system, and probably the SMTP server) means that there's a little overhead setting things up. This is known. It's not particularly interesting.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
>And so what if it is? Why shouldn't someone be able to run a website on Temple OS, or a 68K Mac, or whatever, if he wishes? Absolutely. Or even a gopher site or a Fidonet BBS. The technology mainstream moves on, and if you don't stay with it, you have to expect that there will be implications. At this point, the technology mainstream is moving towards TLS as table-stakes.

notafraudster 5y ago

The author can want whatever the author wants, as I say repeatedly, it's just not of interest to me as a reader if the author is backed into a corner by a series of bizarre lines in the sand on his part. The author is responding to a discourse that says "You should serve your website SSL-enabled" in a passionate enough way to write a blog post about why he shouldn't, and it turns out the reason why he shouldn't is more or less that he doesn't want to. OK. Cool. The choice to want to control everything (except all the things you don't fully control, like the domain name, the DNS system, and probably the SMTP server) means that there's a little overhead setting things up. This is known. It's not particularly interesting.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

>And so what if it is? Why shouldn't someone be able to run a website on Temple OS, or a 68K Mac, or whatever, if he wishes? Absolutely. Or even a gopher site or a Fidonet BBS. The technology mainstream moves on, and if you don't stay with it, you have to expect that there will be implications. At this point, the technology mainstream is moving towards TLS as table-stakes.