3 ms·
I think some of the pressure to update products is irrational. Just because something is newer and better is not yet reason to upgrade. If Apache did everythin
by lmilcin 5y ago
I think some of the pressure to update products is irrational. Just because something is newer and better is not yet reason to upgrade.
If Apache did everything they needed I can imagine a company to completely forgo investigating Nginx and this might have been cause of that kind of statement. Or maybe this was just a way to explain it to younger devs who could not understand "don't break it if it works". We don't know.
The correct way to decide this kind of decision (and many other) is to look at the RoI and your available bandwidth to run multiple projects.
I am still keeping some very old (but still actively developed) products. I am busy with other projects and there just have not been any pressure to update. When I have some time available I prefer to choose a project with highest RoI rather than update stuff because of peer pressure.
- nkozyra 5y agoWell I think you and I are saying the same thing. Don't chase the shiny new thing. That said, by that time Nginx was a proven performance upgrade over Apache 1.x and 2.x. Quantifying that value is tough but it certainly had value attached to it.
- lmilcin 5y agoWhether there is any value depends heavily on your application. If your Apache is responsible for 0.1% of your costs then this is at most what you can save, even if Nginx was magically zero cost (like zero to install, maintain, zero computing resources, zero outages, zero hiring, zero project risks, etc.) From my experience, most projects have way more important problems to solve and better opportunities to pursue than chase those very small improvements. Frequently it does not matter if one is 10 or even 100 times faster than the other.
- nkozyra 5y agoAgain, we don't disagree. But the purported reason for rejection was the newness of Nginx.