All of this also excludes that the fact that your shell script will be just as janky in 10 years as it is now. Again, I regularly, regularly see shell scripts from companies that HN fawns over that don't pass shellcheck and have inherent issues that don't occur in better scripting languages, or full programming languages.
"Forward-compat" is not unique, and not a value proposition to me if it inherently means less reliable function.
Shell scripts can be and often are jank. But at least it's stable jank. Shell devs tend to write portable, stable code because that's the entire point of dealing with the shell jank.
> This wasn't a debian is old thing.
From my reading and understanding, yeah, it was.
If you're contradicting a person's argument ("yeah, it was") at least provide some more explanation, otherwise your comment is rarely more than a "is too!".
Unfortunately requiring approval and authentication from a random incorporated entity running a CA every 90 days is inherently complex. And all the ACME protocol implementations do is hide that inherent complexity by adding even more. CA TLS HTTP is very fragile but it could be made less so if corporate browsers didn't demand short lifetime certs-- a demand reasonable for businesses but not for human people or things expected to last longer than a few years without being touched.