While some of this article makes sense, it is full of exaggerations and outright lies. If you want longer-lived certificates manually, don't use Let's Encrypt.

While some of this article makes sense, it is full of exaggerations and outright lies. If you want longer-lived certificates manually, don't use Let's Encrypt. Why pretend that no other issuer exists? > You don't have to use certbot (...) you can renew certificates manually Or use a different client? Do we pretend these don't exist, too? https://letsencrypt.org/docs/client-options/ https://letsencrypt.org/docs/client-options/ > If you have a hundred websites, then on average that's four hundred renewals a year—more than one every day. Every single day. For the rest of your life. Right, because you can't renew more than one on the same day? You can't do your 100 renewals and go on vacation for 90 days? Why not? That's just not how averages work. > Normally, when a site changes URLs, you can use a redirect to send visitors to the new address. But, if the old address is HTTPS, that doesn't work: the old address will display a misleading security warning instead of redirecting. That too is an outright fabrication. I just tried a 301 redirect from HTTPS to HTTP and it worked fine, on up-to-date Firefox, no security warning. Maybe the author promised to never get rid of TLS with a `Strict-Transport-Security` header? Don't do that? > When you install a certificate with a three-month expiration date, you're saying “I want my website to break in three months unless I show up and tell it not to.” Is that how you feel about permits, licenses, subscriptions? Fixed-time contractors? A "real engineer" wouldn't use anything time-limited? > save the certificate permanently the first time you connect That's the final recommendation? After the author concluded that "certificates provide no security" in the second paragraph because they might man-in-the-middle the challenge? Are we supposed to ignore that they might man-in-the-middle that first connection?