This is all great, I hope this turns into a viable business. But I am just not sure about the approach here.
Maybe this is a good moment for someone to finally fork Caddy, remove the Sponsors header, and distribute proper RPMs and DEBs.
Then those of us who want to use a truly open source project with no strings attached (special conditions re binaries, EULA, etc.) have nothing to worry about.
I've been praying for proper distribution channels for installs. For a project that is all about simplicity in setup, the installation is such a hassle. Manually creating startup entries, directories, process users, horrible.
Thanks Matt, this is DESPERATELY needed for any reasonably sized rollouts(and even my own single personal rollout). Admins don't want to be manually installing software on machines like we're back in the days of compiling everything from source.
Can we at least get the base package sorted before? I really don't need custom with any plugins.
The issue is not forking. It is the build infrastructure to produce all the builds for each OS, architecture, and the desired plugins. This is added value that Caddy adds.
It would be great for a replicated infrastructure to materialize. If it is well maintained it is even likely to overtake Caddy in terms of users, because it would be free software.
Maybe this is a good moment for someone to finally fork Caddy, remove the Sponsors header, and distribute proper RPMs and DEBs.
Then those of us who want to use a truly open source project with no strings attached (special conditions re binaries, EULA, etc.) have nothing to worry about.