4 ms·

Never underestimate the power of "good enough". Apache is "good enough" for most people. NGINX or Node.js really don't bring much new to the table of "good en

by bwarp 15y ago

Never underestimate the power of "good enough". Apache is "good enough" for most people. NGINX or Node.js really don't bring much new to the table of "good enough". It's why plan 9 isn't as popular as it probably should be. UNIX was good enough.

scott_w 15y ago
I disagree. Nginx brings a lot to the table in simplicity and ease-of-use. Just reading an nginx.conf and comparing it to an httpd.conf should be enough to convince you what nginx brings to the table.
- bwarp 15y ago
  I think it's about the same. One looks like XML but isn't. the other looks like C but isn't.
- brianm 15y ago
  A great deal of he complexity comes from OS vendors doing nigh-unspeakable things to httpd.conf. The default httpd.conf from Apache is a bit gnarly too, but compared to what redhat or ubuntu do... not cool. The mandatory configuration is actually pretty minimal, especially if you are using it as an app server. Take, for example, http://kasparov.skife.org/blog/src/wombat/httpd-conf-cool.html http://kasparov.skife.org/blog/src/wombat/httpd-conf-cool.ht... which sets up a bunch of mod_wombat (precurser to now-bundled mod_lua) stuff.
- rickmb 15y ago
  The thing is, for the average site run under Apache, adding 5 lines of config is all the configuration needed for the entire life cycle of the server. On the high end, provisioning is fully automated. Not to mention the fact that after > 15 years(!), amateur sysadmins like me can pretty much dream the config settings. Which leaves a relatively small target audience for whom a simpler config is even remotely relevant.
  - LokiSnake 15y ago
    That's the wrong mindset to have, IMO. Just because the incumbent sysadmins have gotten used to the eccentricities of Apache doesn't mean having something easier to configure is not necessary. This is similar to what people said when the iPhone was announced.
    - quanticle 15y ago
      There's a big difference between your two scenarios. At the time the iPhone came out, only a very tiny fraction of people had ever owned (or even used) a smartphone. The iPhone's success came because it was able to grow the market, convincing feature-phone users to upgrade to a smartphone. I don't see the same thing happening with nginx. I don't see anyone saying, "Gee wiz, I didn't want to be a sysadmin, but now that I've seen nginx's easy config file syntax, I want to be a sysadmin now."
  - sjwright 15y ago
    Yeah, but which five lines? And why should these five lines be buried in a 5000 line conf file?
    - rickmb 15y ago
      I don't know which distribution you're used to, but in many modern Apache setups, the config has been split up into multiple smaller config files each with their own purpose. The average user only ever has to access one small file with 10-15 lines.
nknight 15y ago
Plan 9 is a really, really bad comparison. If you really try Plan 9, you'll find a much better reason that it isn't as popular as it "should be": Absolutely no one has done anything to make it easy to install or pleasant to use. I'd say it reminds me of Linux circa 1996, but that would be pretty damned insulting to Linux. There has never been a concerted effort to move Plan 9 beyond its roots as a research platform. The real world doesn't run on research platforms, and those of us trying to get real work done aren't going to invest our time in a research platform that needs enormous work to bring it up to a usable state.
- cdcarter 15y ago
  "Absolutely no one has done anything to make it easy to install or pleasant to use." You certainly didn't use nginx before it had any english documentation then.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Uh, yeah, and neither did pretty much anybody else. nginx has only been of any significance for a few years. What's your point?
    - stdbrouw 15y ago
      I think his point is that NGINX gained in popularity even when its docs were still awful because the software was supposedly "just that good." Ergo, a bad first impression is an important part of getting software adopted but really good software can overcome that hurdle. The Mapnik GIS software (and the stack around it) used to be similar: a total pain in the ass to compile and configure, but people used it anyway because it was the best thing out there. Mind you, I think these are real exceptions, and don't agree with the implied idea that good software will thrive regardless of how hard it is to work with.
      - nknight 15y ago
        nginx doesn't exactly need much documentation, but it didn't get popular in spite of poor/absent documentation, somebody put in the effort to start writing documentation so a wider audience could put it to use. Nobody has put effort into Plan 9's usability (which, by the way, is a much bigger problem than documentation issues), which was my whole point.

by bwarp 15y ago

scott_w 15y ago

I disagree. Nginx brings a lot to the table in simplicity and ease-of-use. Just reading an nginx.conf and comparing it to an httpd.conf should be enough to convince you what nginx brings to the table.

bwarp 15y ago
I think it's about the same. One looks like XML but isn't. the other looks like C but isn't.
brianm 15y ago
A great deal of he complexity comes from OS vendors doing nigh-unspeakable things to httpd.conf. The default httpd.conf from Apache is a bit gnarly too, but compared to what redhat or ubuntu do... not cool. The mandatory configuration is actually pretty minimal, especially if you are using it as an app server. Take, for example, http://kasparov.skife.org/blog/src/wombat/httpd-conf-cool.html http://kasparov.skife.org/blog/src/wombat/httpd-conf-cool.ht... which sets up a bunch of mod_wombat (precurser to now-bundled mod_lua) stuff.
rickmb 15y ago
The thing is, for the average site run under Apache, adding 5 lines of config is all the configuration needed for the entire life cycle of the server. On the high end, provisioning is fully automated. Not to mention the fact that after > 15 years(!), amateur sysadmins like me can pretty much dream the config settings. Which leaves a relatively small target audience for whom a simpler config is even remotely relevant.
- LokiSnake 15y ago
  That's the wrong mindset to have, IMO. Just because the incumbent sysadmins have gotten used to the eccentricities of Apache doesn't mean having something easier to configure is not necessary. This is similar to what people said when the iPhone was announced.
  - quanticle 15y ago
    There's a big difference between your two scenarios. At the time the iPhone came out, only a very tiny fraction of people had ever owned (or even used) a smartphone. The iPhone's success came because it was able to grow the market, convincing feature-phone users to upgrade to a smartphone. I don't see the same thing happening with nginx. I don't see anyone saying, "Gee wiz, I didn't want to be a sysadmin, but now that I've seen nginx's easy config file syntax, I want to be a sysadmin now."
- sjwright 15y ago
  Yeah, but which five lines? And why should these five lines be buried in a 5000 line conf file?
  - rickmb 15y ago
    I don't know which distribution you're used to, but in many modern Apache setups, the config has been split up into multiple smaller config files each with their own purpose. The average user only ever has to access one small file with 10-15 lines.

nknight 15y ago

Plan 9 is a really, really bad comparison. If you really try Plan 9, you'll find a much better reason that it isn't as popular as it "should be": Absolutely no one has done anything to make it easy to install or pleasant to use. I'd say it reminds me of Linux circa 1996, but that would be pretty damned insulting to Linux. There has never been a concerted effort to move Plan 9 beyond its roots as a research platform. The real world doesn't run on research platforms, and those of us trying to get real work done aren't going to invest our time in a research platform that needs enormous work to bring it up to a usable state.

cdcarter 15y ago
"Absolutely no one has done anything to make it easy to install or pleasant to use." You certainly didn't use nginx before it had any english documentation then.
- nknight 15y ago
  Uh, yeah, and neither did pretty much anybody else. nginx has only been of any significance for a few years. What's your point?
  - stdbrouw 15y ago
    I think his point is that NGINX gained in popularity even when its docs were still awful because the software was supposedly "just that good." Ergo, a bad first impression is an important part of getting software adopted but really good software can overcome that hurdle. The Mapnik GIS software (and the stack around it) used to be similar: a total pain in the ass to compile and configure, but people used it anyway because it was the best thing out there. Mind you, I think these are real exceptions, and don't agree with the implied idea that good software will thrive regardless of how hard it is to work with.
    - nknight 15y ago
      nginx doesn't exactly need much documentation, but it didn't get popular in spite of poor/absent documentation, somebody put in the effort to start writing documentation so a wider audience could put it to use. Nobody has put effort into Plan 9's usability (which, by the way, is a much bigger problem than documentation issues), which was my whole point.