I switched from SWAG to Caddy. Its config file is much simpler, with many best practice settings being default resulting in each sites being like 3 lines of code. Implementing something like mTLS requires one line per site, just super nice to configure, and you’re not left without a template config for more obscure services.

That being said, SWAG does more than enough and Nginx is a powerful software so you really aren’t missing out on anything but more streamlined config.

Traefik is kind of just like, a nightmare that tries to sell you on it being “self configuring” but it takes some work to get to that point and the “self configuring” requires the same amount of time in a text editor as manually configuring Caddy does. I can see Traefik being powerful if you’re using it with actually clustered k8s and distributed workloads. If that’s not your use case it’s kinda just more work than it’s worth.

StaRSS

For you trekkies out there

A white woman, don’t get your hopes up.

Are you sure? I’ve seen generally favorable responses to the game from critics and players alike. Literally the only criticisms I’ve seen levied against the game so far are that it’s woke.

As somebody who runs Ubiquity UniFi gear, it’s all flash and very little substance. Its dashboard will dazzle you with charts that either aren’t accurate, aren’t meaningful, or are generally unhelpful. It has a “new” (half a decade old now) and classic interface you can choose between, but neither interface gives you access to every setting you’ll need. I still to this day find myself swapping between them.

If you just need basic devices to make packets go, they do the job. But an average day in the life of a UniFi-enjoyer consists of things like trying to troubleshoot some kind of network issue only to find that the data collected by the devices doesn’t mathematically make sense, so you go to the UniFi forums just to find out it’s a bug that’s existed for years and has never been resolved. And on days like that, I find myself wishing I had something less flashy that would just allow me to see what’s going on with my network, accurately.

Normies

It sure does

I’m not sure what the logical outcome of this escalating arms race of enshittification will be, but as a career Sysadmin I’ve been able to avoid a LOT of this bullshit through self hosting, which is something a (Non-tech nerd) layman isn’t going to bother with, for as long as existing products (and their subscriptions) are still within “tolerable” levels.

But the thing is, a lot of the convenience with computing devices today didn’t exist in the 90’s, when it was more common for young normies to have what would be considered above average computer technical skills today.

When the entire market turns into inescapable subscriptions, the market for a non-technical friendly appliance box, like Synology came close to doing, shows up to corner the market on hardware you can own and run your own shit on with minimal headaches and no subscriptions.

I should clarify that what I’m asking is what you think the benefit would be. Since you don’t have an answer to the question I will give it to you: There would be no benefit. There already exists dozens of gTLDs to migrate to, they don’t need another specific one.

I don’t think they really need a standardized place to move to. The natural gTLD for them to move to today would be .tech, but it could be anything. Nothing wrong with good old .com. Every one of these companies undoubtedly already own at least a dozen versions of their domains on all the most popular gTLDs. The time scale of moving would also be 5-10 years. Thats plenty of time to move your domain, have a redirect on the old domain, and people to get used to the new domain.

…why? For what purpose and how would that help at all?

The coexistence of .gb and .uk is only because .uk predates the rule by a few months. You could say it was grandfathered in, though they are both reserved in ISO 3166-1. This one isn’t a good example of something that can happen decades after the rule was put in place.

As for .eu it isn’t really an exception, .eu is reserved in ISO 3166-1.

How would IANA changing one TLD into a different TLD and then everyone using the old TLD migrating everything to the new TLD be any easier than everyone just migrating everything to a new TLD?

In either case there wouldn’t be anything “in unison” about it.

Yes I have. ccTLDs are 2 characters, as I specified above. To make .io into a gTLD you’d need to add a third character, which wouldn’t do anything to help the companies who are using .io today.

The companies who are using .io who aren’t associated with the Indian Ocean Territories will however have 5 years (or 10 if an extension is requested) to migrate to a gTLD before .io is retired.

gTLDs are 3 characters or more (.com .net .org ). 2 characters TLDs are reserved for ccTLDs. This allows a CLEAR separation between gTLDs and ccTLDs, so that precisely what’s happening with the .io ccTLD doesn’t happen on accident.

The reason is because ccTLDs need to match the alpha-2 code of the country as it exists in ISO 3166-1. This is because IANA doesn’t want to be the arbiter of which countries exist or not. You get a code, you get a ccTLD. No code, no ccTLD.

.su exists in spite of the policy of IANA, not because of them. The popularity of a ccTLD has no relevance to its continued existence.

ITT: People who think this won’t happen because they don’t understand the first thing about IANA, ICANN, their policies, ccTLDs, or the history of this kind of thing happening before. While ICANN has the authority to allow the .io domain to continue to exist, it would be a complete reversal on their newly established policy for retiring ccTLDs, which was primarily motivated by being burned on this exact type of thing happening before.

A good example is the .yu ccTLD which after a long back and forth was finally retired in 2010.

That is most definitely exactly exactly how it works.

That is not what will happen. 2 letter TLDs are reserved for ccTLDs.