[kwlug-disc] Let's Encrypt out of beta

[Jason Locklin]

On 14/04/16 11:06 PM, Paul Nijjar via kwlug-disc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:21:28AM +0000, B.S. via kwlug-disc wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
> Maybe a better word than "dangerous" is "fragile".
> 
> None of this is to suggest that I am uninterested in Let's Encrypt. We
> have not deployed it at work, but I think we will. I will not be
> trusting in its longevity, however.

I'm curious, Paul, what model you think would be less fragile? Solely
private-donation funded projects are certainly not more stable, and
neither are un-funded works done purely out of interest by the
developer. Directly commercialized projects have pretty much the same
expected lifespan as FLOSS projects, disappearing all the time.

At this point, a FLOSS project, like let's encrypt, with a long list of
commercial sponsors and private donors and a low overhead is easily as
trustworthy as any other project or commercial service. Unless there is
some other piece of information, calling it fragile can't be justified
as much more than FUD.