6 ms·

According to the public statements, F5 is committing to maintain the current level of resources NGINX has allocated to their open source programs, to keep the s

According to the public statements, F5 is committing to maintain the current level of resources NGINX has allocated to their open source programs, to keep the same dev team involved, to keep licensing as it currently is, not change any of the repositories on Mercurial and GitHub and to keep the NGINX brand. Which only means that NGINX will get even better over time.

EvangelicalPig 8y ago
Hopefully if it declines we can have a MariaDB type fork take it's place.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- beatgammit 8y ago
  nginy? But yeah, hopefully the community around it is solid enough to make that a possibility. I'd really prefer to not go back to Apache...
  - dharmab 8y ago
    Pronounced "en-genie", with an oil lamp as the logo?
  - Rexxar 8y ago
    Incrementing all letters : "nginx" => "ohjoy"
    - EvangelicalPig 8y ago
      You win
foobarbazetc 8y ago
Every company that has ever acquired anything says this exact same thing. Then the deal closes and it’s back to bottom line numbers.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  In this case how does f5 make or lose money from Nginx?
  - TkTech 8y ago
    I guess this[1] image from the F5 article gives an idea of where nginx fits from their perspective. F5 is a huge company (4000~ employees) that already likely has thousands of boxes running nginx. If you're going to continue using nginx as a critical piece of your business you might as well secure its future. [1]: https://www.f5.com/content/dam/f5-com/page-assets-en/home-en/company/blog/2019/F5-NGINX-infographics-1.jpg https://www.f5.com/content/dam/f5-com/page-assets-en/home-en...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
Aeolun 8y ago
I’ve seen that a lot of times. What I haven’t seen a ton of is the acquired company still existing 5 years later.
dsl 8y ago
NGINX was already paywalling bug fixes once they launched Pro. proxy_pass for example will only resolve a hostname at the time the configuration is parsed, unless you use a convoluted variable hack. This was a serious issue requiring you to restart your fleet if a backend server changed IPs. The bug fix for this was implemented only in Pro and sold as "DNS for Service Discovery."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- brightball 8y ago
  How’s Apache doing these days? Haven’t looked in a while
  - skoskie 8y ago
    Nowhere near as fast with concurrent connections.
    - jimjag 8y ago
      That is simply untrue. Apache 2.4.x w/ the Event MPM is just as fast and actually has lower latency. That FUD has long, long since been disproved.
- keypusher 8y ago
  Put a load balancer between your reverse proxy and your backends. Problem solved.
  - corebit 8y ago
    What do you think nginx was being used for?
munificent 8y ago
> committing to maintain the current level of resources NGINX has allocated to their open source programs What are the contractual consequences if they don't keep that commitment? If the answer is "none", then it's not a commitment.
rodgerd 8y ago
Which is an interesting statement given that everyone I've run into associated with F5 - local reps or users - have been relentlessly hostile to "open source crap".
kabacha 8y ago
Oh boy do I have a bridge to sell to you!
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
delusion

EvangelicalPig 8y ago

Hopefully if it declines we can have a MariaDB type fork take it's place.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
beatgammit 8y ago
nginy? But yeah, hopefully the community around it is solid enough to make that a possibility. I'd really prefer to not go back to Apache...
- dharmab 8y ago
  Pronounced "en-genie", with an oil lamp as the logo?
- Rexxar 8y ago
  Incrementing all letters : "nginx" => "ohjoy"
  - EvangelicalPig 8y ago
    You win

foobarbazetc 8y ago

Every company that has ever acquired anything says this exact same thing. Then the deal closes and it’s back to bottom line numbers.

notyourwork 8y ago
In this case how does f5 make or lose money from Nginx?
- TkTech 8y ago
  I guess this[1] image from the F5 article gives an idea of where nginx fits from their perspective. F5 is a huge company (4000~ employees) that already likely has thousands of boxes running nginx. If you're going to continue using nginx as a critical piece of your business you might as well secure its future. [1]: https://www.f5.com/content/dam/f5-com/page-assets-en/home-en/company/blog/2019/F5-NGINX-infographics-1.jpg https://www.f5.com/content/dam/f5-com/page-assets-en/home-en...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

Aeolun 8y ago

I’ve seen that a lot of times. What I haven’t seen a ton of is the acquired company still existing 5 years later.

dsl 8y ago

NGINX was already paywalling bug fixes once they launched Pro. proxy_pass for example will only resolve a hostname at the time the configuration is parsed, unless you use a convoluted variable hack. This was a serious issue requiring you to restart your fleet if a backend server changed IPs. The bug fix for this was implemented only in Pro and sold as "DNS for Service Discovery."

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
brightball 8y ago
How’s Apache doing these days? Haven’t looked in a while
- skoskie 8y ago
  Nowhere near as fast with concurrent connections.
  - jimjag 8y ago
    That is simply untrue. Apache 2.4.x w/ the Event MPM is just as fast and actually has lower latency. That FUD has long, long since been disproved.
keypusher 8y ago
Put a load balancer between your reverse proxy and your backends. Problem solved.
- corebit 8y ago
  What do you think nginx was being used for?

munificent 8y ago

> committing to maintain the current level of resources NGINX has allocated to their open source programs What are the contractual consequences if they don't keep that commitment? If the answer is "none", then it's not a commitment.

rodgerd 8y ago

Which is an interesting statement given that everyone I've run into associated with F5 - local reps or users - have been relentlessly hostile to "open source crap".

kabacha 8y ago

Oh boy do I have a bridge to sell to you!

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

delusion