I'm a consumer. I have a web server on IIS. I come to their site. How do I know this?
---
The answer is: I don't. I hit the "getting started" page. I see instructions for Linux. I don't have Linux. I say "oh well," and leave.
In fact that scenario is pretty much exactly what happened a few weeks ago when someone told me about let's encrypt. Which explains the post I made to this thread today.
We've already established that this is a documentation issue worth fixing, but surely you're not suggesting a lack of IIS-specific documentation on the website is reason enough to keep using the beta-label? Have you ever had the pleasure of buying a certificate from $RANDOM_CA_RESELLER? I'd have no trouble sticking an "alpha" label on the majority of those!
It seems you're misunderstanding what I meant with $RANDOM_CA_RESELLER. There are tons of random hosters who resell SSL certificates (sometimes as a white-label product), and many of them have terrible documentation. RapidSSL, one of the biggest CAs, is certainly not what I had in mind there.
You're also missing my point that a documentation issue doesn't mean a service deserves the "beta" label.
Again: I thought the goal was to make it as easy as possible to add a SSL cert to any website.
If you make the process require knowledge of acronyms like "ACME" or "LE CA", well. You've not attained that goal. You're not even close. That's the message I'm trying to get across here.
If I misunderstand the goal, then by all means, correct me.
---
The answer is: I don't. I hit the "getting started" page. I see instructions for Linux. I don't have Linux. I say "oh well," and leave.
In fact that scenario is pretty much exactly what happened a few weeks ago when someone told me about let's encrypt. Which explains the post I made to this thread today.