4 ms·
This article comes off as basically victim-blaming, when it comes to "not my problem" if some bad actor injects ads etc. The arguments against Caddy are no lon
by francislavoie 5y ago
This article comes off as basically victim-blaming, when it comes to "not my problem" if some bad actor injects ads etc.
The arguments against Caddy are no longer true. Caddy runs on a ton of platforms, essentially any that Go can use as compile targets (except for plan9 for the moment because of a dependency of Caddy's that has a compatibility problem https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/3615#issuecomment-903450681 https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/3615#issuecommen...). Caddy also doesn't have to run as root, nor does it by default with our apt/yum packages.
Also a passing comment essentially calling Let's Encrypt... with their track record at this point, I don't think that can be said.
The rest is basically just vitriol.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y agoYeah, I've seen this n-gate page before. It's nothing more than victim blaming and circular logic. Damn near every argument being made is "That attack doesn't matter to me because I don't use HTTPS because my site doesn't need HTTPS".