5 ms·

I'm glad I stuck with Apache httpd whilst everyone was moving to nginx. None of this drama with httpd.

tetris11 3y ago
I'm having a great time with Caddy. My whole Jupyter stack is reverse proxied to Caddy, and the Caddy config is a single line compared to the 100 line mess that they reccomend people use for Apache or nginx (yes caddy takes care of upgrading your headers, websockets, certificates, all of it)
- infofarmer 3y ago
  once you actually need to configure Caddy, it is an abomination beyond imagination — the docs, Caddyfile, JSON config — all of them lack coherence or sensible design never touching it again good defaults matter; nginx configs were very concise and readable in 2005-2015 when I was using it heavily; http/3, ws, acme — perhaps new tech is yet to be incorporated properly (and maybe it never will)
  - tetris11 3y ago
    I genuinely haven't had a problem with it -- I use it for all my projects, and it's seamless at rewriting baseurls handling subdomains, proxies, all of it.
citrin_ru 3y ago
A fork is not necessary bad for users. Nginx is already a great product and I believe both Nginx Inc version and freenginx will not become worse over the time. Likely they would gain different features, will have different release schedules e. t. c.
blowski 3y ago
Is it that much of a drama? Seems more like this is the whole selling point of open source - if you don't like something, you fork it, and people can vote with their installations. This kind of stuff happens all the time in private companies, but we as users have much less influence over the outcome.
Joel_Mckay 3y ago
Apache needs slowloris mitigation, and a dozen other tweaks to get it secure (mpm-itk, fail2ban rules, and anti-spammer mods etc.) It can be good, but most people run the vanilla install. Sometimes it is the only solution... ;-) However, Nginx gets over 20% more concurrent users per host... Hence the main reason people put up with its lack of features and silly HA design. Forks can be healthy, but it usually quickly degrades into a competition for users. Hope everyone has fun =)
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Er, does nginx have some fail2ban built-in? Because it really sounds like that's apples-to-oranges.
  - Joel_Mckay 3y ago
    Apache on the web is constantly probed for remote exploits, and it requires more preemptive precautions. These issues go well beyond the standard checks for bad bot traffic. You are correct in that many of the CVEs were not technically Apache itself, but rather supporting libraries and old mods. Best of luck =)
    - RedShift1 3y ago
      Obviously other webservers are also continuously being probed..
maccard 3y ago
I'd rather have gotten 15 years out of a superior solution personally.
krisoft 3y ago
Drama? This feels like your own projection. Nginx is a stable, and reliable piece of software. It was before this, and will be after this. What happened is that someone who used to work on it now works on a new thing. This happens, people are not slaves to their previous projects. They can and should do new things when they wish to. In time if the new thing becomes usefull in some way perhaps some people will choose to use it instead of nginx. Perhaps that day will never come. Both of those are fine. What is certain is that nginx has a critical mass behind it that even if a core developer moves away to do something else it won’t shrivel up and die. If you are an nginx user today in a personal or professional capacity most likely you will be able to use it until the end of your life with no special worries. I have no problem with you using Apache httpd, and I am happy that you are happy with your choice. On the other hand it does not feel usefull to portray this as some special reason why one should not have choosen nginx.
wlonkly 3y ago
This is how Apache came into being (without so many hard feelings, maybe), though -- as (what we would now call) a fork, of NCSA httpd.

I'm having a great time with Caddy. My whole Jupyter stack is reverse proxied to Caddy, and the Caddy config is a single line compared to the 100 line mess that they reccomend people use for Apache or nginx (yes caddy takes care of upgrading your headers, websockets, certificates, all of it)

infofarmer 3y ago
once you actually need to configure Caddy, it is an abomination beyond imagination — the docs, Caddyfile, JSON config — all of them lack coherence or sensible design never touching it again good defaults matter; nginx configs were very concise and readable in 2005-2015 when I was using it heavily; http/3, ws, acme — perhaps new tech is yet to be incorporated properly (and maybe it never will)
- tetris11 3y ago
  I genuinely haven't had a problem with it -- I use it for all my projects, and it's seamless at rewriting baseurls handling subdomains, proxies, all of it.

citrin_ru 3y ago

A fork is not necessary bad for users. Nginx is already a great product and I believe both Nginx Inc version and freenginx will not become worse over the time. Likely they would gain different features, will have different release schedules e. t. c.

blowski 3y ago

Is it that much of a drama? Seems more like this is the whole selling point of open source - if you don't like something, you fork it, and people can vote with their installations. This kind of stuff happens all the time in private companies, but we as users have much less influence over the outcome.

Joel_Mckay 3y ago

Apache needs slowloris mitigation, and a dozen other tweaks to get it secure (mpm-itk, fail2ban rules, and anti-spammer mods etc.) It can be good, but most people run the vanilla install. Sometimes it is the only solution... ;-) However, Nginx gets over 20% more concurrent users per host... Hence the main reason people put up with its lack of features and silly HA design. Forks can be healthy, but it usually quickly degrades into a competition for users. Hope everyone has fun =)

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Er, does nginx have some fail2ban built-in? Because it really sounds like that's apples-to-oranges.
- Joel_Mckay 3y ago
  Apache on the web is constantly probed for remote exploits, and it requires more preemptive precautions. These issues go well beyond the standard checks for bad bot traffic. You are correct in that many of the CVEs were not technically Apache itself, but rather supporting libraries and old mods. Best of luck =)
  - RedShift1 3y ago
    Obviously other webservers are also continuously being probed..

maccard 3y ago

I'd rather have gotten 15 years out of a superior solution personally.

krisoft 3y ago

Drama? This feels like your own projection. Nginx is a stable, and reliable piece of software. It was before this, and will be after this. What happened is that someone who used to work on it now works on a new thing. This happens, people are not slaves to their previous projects. They can and should do new things when they wish to. In time if the new thing becomes usefull in some way perhaps some people will choose to use it instead of nginx. Perhaps that day will never come. Both of those are fine. What is certain is that nginx has a critical mass behind it that even if a core developer moves away to do something else it won’t shrivel up and die. If you are an nginx user today in a personal or professional capacity most likely you will be able to use it until the end of your life with no special worries. I have no problem with you using Apache httpd, and I am happy that you are happy with your choice. On the other hand it does not feel usefull to portray this as some special reason why one should not have choosen nginx.

wlonkly 3y ago

This is how Apache came into being (without so many hard feelings, maybe), though -- as (what we would now call) a fork, of NCSA httpd.