Hacker News Reader

Comment by jesalas | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

View on HN

> NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

Then why the angst? This just makes me more confused about what your argument is.

What angst? That post reads more like a warning to others to me - after all, if they'd been aware of this issue from the start, they could've just used Apache from the beginning and avoided the hassle of having to migrate.

It's a sad reason to have to drop a piece of software and learn the config management of another. logging, really?

Perhaps in the next version it will be free for up to 20 concurrent connections and then $1 for each one after that.

>NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

From the post:

>admittedly amazing software

It sounds, honestly, like you're never going to pay for OSS. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, but to then write a post entitled "We should ditch NGINX" seems way over the top.

Why's it over the top for my company to ditch NGINX because it's missing a feature that Apache httpd provides?

Because you suggest everyone else should too.

Because you depend on a tool that you're not willing to pay for .. is it so difficult to see that you are being viewed as a bit of a scrooge, given that you will profit greatly from software you don't own and haven't paid for .. ?

First, there is no proof of how much profit comes from nginx in a stack with PHP so you can drop the 'profit greatly' line.

Second, the entire point of open source software and the FOSS movement is that you shouldn't be extorted for functionality. Do you harass people that file bug reports or submit requests for features to the Linux Kernel for not paying?

Are you or are you not running a business with FOSS? It was Free: so any USE of the software that you get out of it, was profitable. What part of "this is free, so anything you do with it is profitable" do you not agree with?

Second: extortion, really? Thats what you're calling this, in the same breath as admitting that you won't/can't/are unwilling to pay for software that is a key part of the production line?

The entire point of FOSS is being able to have the source code of the software you use. Period. That's it.

The people who write the software can do whatever the hell they want, as can the people using the software, as long as they abide by the licence. These are the only stipulations. Even RMS supports the right of creators to sell software.

People who write FOSS software aren't required to be a charity...

> People who write FOSS software aren't required to be a charity...

I think this is a point so many users of FOSS miss. I'm an ardent supporter of FOSS, but I don't get to act entitled unless I'm paying someone (and probably not even then).

The over-the-top part is where you use the stigma from your story (how nginx spurned you by choosing to charge you for a particular feature, which does not seem fair to you because you need it) to try to get everybody to stop using it, when the issue is simply that it does not suit YOUR needs.

I didn't get that at all from his post. "We really need to migrate off of NGINX" sounds like 'we' is his company, not the entire world.

> NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

So use Apache or any other HTTPD. Problem solved.

If nginx has no features that set it off feom other servers you could simply switch to Apache which has the syslog feature. But for some reason you do not seem to do this, or am I mistaken?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com