Readit NewsLooks like https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632 to me?
This is what you’re referring to, right?
> > I think it's unfair to say that I post this every time when I've only mentioned it twice before, with the previous time being 2 years ago.
> Last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39474419 and you also said "I have only brought this up once before on HN and it was over 2 years ago." in that same thread.
Okay, so the last time was 18 months ago not two years. But do you really think that mentioning it three times in 3.5 years can fairly be described as a grudge?
> Stop being hung up on Francis' response.
This is the only thing that matters to me in this thread. The bug itself is not that interesting. It’s a big deal to me that your team seems to take even the mildest mention of a bug as some kind of harassment. I’ve seen that kind of attitude before, and it’s dangerous.
You keep saying that, but you did change my belief! My opinion is not immutable, I listen to what people say, and that is the reason we have ended up here. Because I listened to you and you convinced me to change my mind about Caddy.
> Show me an actual security threat relating to this and I will address it. But this problem as stated is not one.
“This problem” that I’m concerned with is your attitude not the FQDN bug, and I already gave the Signal example. When you start perceiving people reporting bugs as attacks and grudges, it makes it dangerously easy to dismiss real problems.
If that person found another problem with Caddy, I think they are less likely to report it to you because of this. If they did report it, I would think you are very likely to dismiss it because of who they are, not the contents of the bug report. This is a serious problem for my trust in Caddy.
An HN thread is not the place to report a bug. Nor do I think it's fair to form opinions about project maintenance (which doesn't happen on HN) based on comments in HN.
Which is to say, in N years, will the Caddy defaults be full of some unfortunate decisions?
Caddy and Traefik have been around for a while now, so curious what has prevented the boring technology from essentially flipping some defaults around.
Admittedly there are some decisions we made with Caddy v2.0 that we would like to revisit eventually with a Caddy v3.0 in some future, but we haven't gotten to the point we've felt the need to plan that, most of those issues are minor enough that they haven't been deal-breakers. (And for context, v2.0 being a rewrite and rearchitecture from v0/v1 was necessary to unlock the potential that Caddy has realized today).
You are still locked into this idea that the sole purpose of bringing it up is for your response. This is an open conversation, not a dialogue between only you and them. It doesn’t matter if you have made your stance clear, them bringing it up gives other people a chance to hear about it and discuss it.
> I know you've already made up your mind, but look at our track record of answering support questions on the forums and tickets on GitHub, and you'll see that the picture you've formed in your mind from this thread is not accurate.
To be clear: my mind was made up that Caddy was a good, reliable choice, and it was your behaviour in this thread that changed my mind, it wasn’t my imagination.
> IMO there's more risk in introducing a new security bug in trying to fix this issue than there is leaving it as-is (failing fast and hard).
I believe that, but I also believe your attitude is a bigger threat to security than either.
> I believe that, but I also believe your attitude is a bigger threat to security than either.
I can't change your belief, nor do I care to, but I think that's absurd. Show me an actual security threat relating to this and I will address it. But this problem as stated is not one.
> we'd just like for it to stop being shoved in our face.
This is the comment you are referring to:
> There still remains this simple to reproduce bug where the page doesn't load of you use the full domain name of a site.
They aren’t asking you to repeat yourself. They aren’t shoving it in your face. This is an open discussion thread with many participants. They weren’t talking to you directly. This is information anybody here can find interesting and relevant. I did.
> I really don't think it's fair for you to make a judgement on me or the project from an interaction like this. At least judge the project on its technical merits.
How you are reacting to this is far more important to me than the original bug.
Remember when 37signals suffered data loss because they were using GET requests to delete things? When people pointed out they had a bug, they were offended and blamed GWA. What happened next? The same thing happened all over again, users suffered more data loss.
Or how about when Naomi Wu reported a problem with Signal, where the common use case of third-party keyboards for Chinese people was rendering all of their security worthless? They dismissed that as somebody with a grudge and ignored her for a year. What happened next? People found out that Chinese keyboards were compromised; she was 100% right, and Signal users were in danger.
I’ve seen what happens when people have this attitude towards inconvenient people reporting inconvenient bugs. It’s a danger to users, and you are making Caddy seem dangerous with this attitude. I was a happy user of Caddy right up until this thread, and even halfway down this thread – even after reading the mention of the bug – but your reaction has flipped that to the opposite because I can’t trust that there aren’t more bugs you are handling this way.
I know you've already made up your mind, but look at our track record of answering support questions on the forums and tickets on GitHub, and you'll see that the picture you've formed in your mind from this thread is not accurate.
Those comparisons are very straw-man and I won't entertain them. As I've already said, IMO there's more risk in introducing a new security bug in trying to fix this issue than there is leaving it as-is (failing fast and hard).
I really don't think it's fair for you to make a judgement on me or the project from an interaction like this. At least judge the project on its technical merits. I've been very transparent here. But I can't stop you from having your thoughts. It is what it is.
That is not a grudge. That is not slander. That is not a hill to die on. That is not an attack.
This makes me wonder how many other minor bugs are dismissed by you as a grudge due to you overreacting like this. It makes me a lot less confident in your project.
It’s perfectly fine for you to say ”this is low priority and we have no plans to fix it in the immediate future”. What’s not fine is treating it like a personal attack because they dared mention it twice in 18 months.
Caddy always worked well and recommended to other people. So I’m a pro caddy user, don’t get me wrong.
We appreciate the recommendations! :)
One thing I did like about Apache back in the day was that it made it really easy to give per served web folder configuration. Nowadays I just toss stuff on a subdomain (cuz there's little reason not to), but if you only have one hostname to put things on (ie. a homelab thatt you can only access by local IP address), that's obviously not an option. .htaccess files were pretty neat for doing that.
Nginx can't really do that as easily, you have to start futzing with different location blocks and it kinda gets messy quickly.
On a not-so-relevant note, I do think Apache has probably the nicest "dirlist" out of all of them. Nginx's is really ugly and Caddy's feels too overdesigned.