4 ms·

> The best seem to be Gunicorn and uWSGI, and Gunicorn seems the best supported and most active project. This is not so cut and dry. In May, Gunicorn had 12 ma

> The best seem to be Gunicorn and uWSGI, and Gunicorn seems the best supported and most active project. This is not so cut and dry. In May, Gunicorn had 12 mailing list messages, where uWsgi had 191. uWsgi has a twitter with 225 followers, where Gunicorn has none. #gunicorn@freenode has 32 users, but #nginx@freenode seems to have a lot of uWsgi users. Also, the author mentions nothing about installing the Nginx PPA for ubuntu. If you use the default repo on Lucid (as suggested by the author), you will end up with a very old version of Nginx that doesn't even natively support wsgi.

davisp 15y ago
As you say, its not so cut and dry. Gunicorn has only had a mailing list since about May. Most of our dev work is based in IRC or via the GitHub issues tracker. The three committers, @benoitc, @tilgovi, and @davisp have a combined 1709 twitter followers. There are also 479 watchers and 64 forks of the main development repo on GitHub. Bottom line, numbers like this don't really mean much. In the end, people should investigate any project they think is a candidate and make a decision based on their specific criteria rather than try and use some proxy metric to make the decision.
senko 15y ago
> If you use the default repo on Lucid (as suggested by the author), you will end up with a very old version of Nginx that doesn't even natively support wsgi. Nginx+Gunicorn combination uses HTTP, so WSGI support is not needed in that case.
- unbit 15y ago
  uWSGI supports HTTP and FastCGI too, natively. Using the uwsgi protocol (that has nothing to do with WSGI standard) is only a way to increase performance and add a bunch of features. uWSGI and gunicorn are very different projects, with very, very different targets. Trying to make a fair comparison is impossibile.

4 ms·

> The best seem to be Gunicorn and uWSGI, and Gunicorn seems the best supported and most active project. This is not so cut and dry. In May, Gunicorn had 12 ma

by brendoncrawford 15y ago

davisp 15y ago
As you say, its not so cut and dry. Gunicorn has only had a mailing list since about May. Most of our dev work is based in IRC or via the GitHub issues tracker. The three committers, @benoitc, @tilgovi, and @davisp have a combined 1709 twitter followers. There are also 479 watchers and 64 forks of the main development repo on GitHub. Bottom line, numbers like this don't really mean much. In the end, people should investigate any project they think is a candidate and make a decision based on their specific criteria rather than try and use some proxy metric to make the decision.
senko 15y ago
> If you use the default repo on Lucid (as suggested by the author), you will end up with a very old version of Nginx that doesn't even natively support wsgi. Nginx+Gunicorn combination uses HTTP, so WSGI support is not needed in that case.
- unbit 15y ago
  uWSGI supports HTTP and FastCGI too, natively. Using the uwsgi protocol (that has nothing to do with WSGI standard) is only a way to increase performance and add a bunch of features. uWSGI and gunicorn are very different projects, with very, very different targets. Trying to make a fair comparison is impossibile.