3 ms·
Agree with all the points here. Most of all, there's a cost to switching to G-Wan. It's not a zero cost. So as long as that cost is greater than the speed/load
by todsul 15y ago
Agree with all the points here.
Most of all, there's a cost to switching to G-Wan. It's not a zero cost. So as long as that cost is greater than the speed/load benefits, it won't gain serious support. And it doesn't help that the creator attacks and insults people who dare challenge him.
Right now, G-Wan can't serve any of my sites without serious work and modifications. The claimed load capabilities aren't nearly enough to make me switch from Nginx. For me, Nginx handles anything I throw at it AND it's very easy to implement. At our size, buying servers twice the size would still cost a fraction of implementing G-Wan across all sites.
So really, this "comparative" benchmark needs to include 1) time/effort to implement, 2) ability to run existing websites, and 3) community support.
- quesera 15y agoThe same things were said about Rails when I first started using it in 2003. Well, except for the speed part. :) Rails adoption was almost entirely for new projects back then. Rails had the advantage of Ruby, which was a great way to bring in newer developers. C might not be as attractive to today's equivalent, but I know many people who love Rails but are ready for something different. G-Wan seems to solve some of the hard parts of C programming for this usage model. The closed source nature of G-Wan bothers me, and may prove to be an insurmountable problem, but otherwise I think the ideas are pretty great. It brings me back to the days of qmail and NSAPI...both of which were awesome in their own ways.