HTTP is incomparibly less fragile than HTTPS which is why HTTP+HTTPS is such a great solution for websites made by human persons for human persons. Lets be clear, corporate or institutional persons using HTTPS alone is fine and reasonable. But for human use cases HTTP+HTTPS gets you the best of both worlds. No HTTPS cert system ever survives longer than a few years without human input/maintainence. There's just too much changing and too much complexity. From the software of the user to the software of the webserver.
Which is to say, HTTP is not some "ancient" tech like an analog television. It is a modern technology used today doing things that HTTPS can't.
Agree strongly. An expired cert is better than no cert.
Also would argue maintenance is only as complicated as you make it for yourself. Countless people keep patched, secure, https web servers running with minimal effort. If its somehow effort, introspect some on why you are somehow making so much work for yourself.
Might be a bit of each of us touching different ends of the elephant. To be clear I am talking about long timespans. Lets Encrypt hasn't even existed for a full decade yet. During that time it's dropped support entirely for the original acme protocol. During that time it's root certs have expired at least twice (only those I remember where it caused issues in older software). And that's ignoring the churn in acme/acme2 clients and specific OS/Distro cert choice issues and browser CA issues. Saying that there's no trouble with HTTPS must be coming from experiences on short timescales (ie, a few years).
HTTP/3 already doesn't allow anything but CA TLS only. It won't be too long before they no longer allow you to click through CA TLS warnings.
If human people want things to be on the web for long time periods those things should be served HTTP+HTTPS.
This is such a weird framing. HTTPS is HTTP. TLS is at a different layer of the network stack. You may as well say HTTP through a proxy is better or worse than HTTP through a VPN; all of those statements are equally nonsensical.
You are simply arguing that insecure network requests require less work. Which is obviously true. TLS did not appear out of nothing. Much effort was expended to create it, and there's a reason
Which is to say, HTTP is not some "ancient" tech like an analog television. It is a modern technology used today doing things that HTTPS can't.
I saw once my ISP injecting javascript ads into http traffic and the horror is with me forever
Also would argue maintenance is only as complicated as you make it for yourself. Countless people keep patched, secure, https web servers running with minimal effort. If its somehow effort, introspect some on why you are somehow making so much work for yourself.
HTTP/3 already doesn't allow anything but CA TLS only. It won't be too long before they no longer allow you to click through CA TLS warnings.
If human people want things to be on the web for long time periods those things should be served HTTP+HTTPS.
You are simply arguing that insecure network requests require less work. Which is obviously true. TLS did not appear out of nothing. Much effort was expended to create it, and there's a reason