Caddy 2.6 is out, the biggest release since Caddy 2

Under the limitation of "no dynamic loading anywhere ever", Caddy has indeed made it exceptionally easy (with xcaddy and their web builder) to compile with modules, but this doesn't excuse the fact that their purely philosophical stance is making the job of sysadmins harder. I've heard decent arguments against dynamic libraries (although IMO they still didn't outweigh the downsides of static linking), but never against dynamic loading in general.

Is there a good explanation of this stance anywhere? I haven't spent too much time looking, I'll admit, but if you're breaking decades of common practice, you better put that explanation front and center.

> having a node that compiles static versions of it for your specific use is not too much of a change from repackaging a docker container with your specific configuration of nginx

Sure, but a custom Docker container isn't the baseline for ease of use, `apt-get install [module] && a2enmod [module]` is.