12 ms·
Nginx Plus
- ryansouza 13y agoWish the page had more specific technical details and less sales-speak
- mh- 13y ago+1 on that. and I hate having to submit a request for a salesperson to contact me so I can get more info on the product. my interest went from "oh wow I'd like to evaluate this tonight" to "blah. this is sure to be a grating email dialogue." edit: ..and even though I'd be willing to buy a small license now for evaluation purposes that seems to lead to the same sales trap.
- mh- 13y agoI wanted to add that someone from NGINX contacted me first thing this morning with a refreshingly personable follow-up. So while I still object to forced-into-sales-inquiry funnels like we were discussing here.. I have to apologize for assuming they'd be bad at it. :)
- eksith 13y agoThere's a datasheet http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datasheet.pdf http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datashee... But that's got more sales-speak sprinkled in with the technical details.
- mrweasel 13y agoAt this point I don't think they're trying to appeal to the system administrator or developers. The page should be directed at the sales people, initially they customers will be people like me, who just want to give them money but needs to convince the business people that it's a good investment. We doing just fine with the current open source version, but I want to see nginx stick around and honestly their price is very reasonable. Even small companies can pay and help keep the nginx developers around. I understand peoples concerns, but it seems to be the only way for the nginx developers to do what they do best. Donations are clearly not working. It's only reasonable that they want to get a stable paycheck while helping the rest of us getting ours.
- eminh 13y agoSad news, although it was obviously coming. Glad for Igor and others involved, but for me it is about time to start looking for alternatives.
- cbg0 13y agoYou need to start looking for alternatives because they put out a slightly more advanced version only available to subscribers?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eminh 13y agoYes, I have never seen similar commercializations work well in the long term.
- troels 13y agoThere's definitely some problems with this business model. On one hand, having a premium product means that Igor won't be contributing as much features to the open source version. On the other hand, it might discourage 3rd party developers from contributing features that are already covered by the premium product. There's probably some upsides as well, but it's certainly not without its issues.
- ProblemFactory 13y agoHaving a premium product could also mean that the open-source version grows faster. Having stable revenue means the ability to spend 100% of the time working on the project (instead of it being a side project), and hire more full-time employees. It is possible that as a result both the pro and open-source versions improve faster than in an only-volunteer open-source project.
- troels 13y agoThat's a good point. Although, so far, the project has evolved pretty well, so it doesn't seem to remedy a current problem. An alternative strategy to ensure it to do so in the future, could be to build a team of open source contributors to take charge of the further development of the project. As a user, I would prefer this, as it doesn't have the inherent conflicts of interests that a premium/free model has.
- mh- 13y agoseems to be available in the AWS marketplace here (just found it by Googling): https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00A04GAG4/ https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00A04GAG4/ unfortunately it's not available for cluster compute/HVM instances, so I can't compare it with our existing nginx deployment.
- zobzu 13y agoso, nginx is no longer "fully opensource" so, fuck it. (yeah, i don't care - its closed, i can't help patch it/fix it/what not => fork or use something else) note that i'd totally pay for support - its the closedness that bothers me.
- dchest 13y agonote that i'd totally pay for support So why didn't you? Nginx Inc. had support available for some time.
- weego 13y agoBecause he was hoping to farm points off other zealots with his hyperbole. I'm not sure if that is better or worse than him actually believing what he typed. Either way I really can't vote these kinds of people down enough.
- pjscott 13y agoNothing that was open has been closed. Nothing that we had has been lost.
- ck2 13y agoSo this is going to be like Redhat -> CentOS ?
- dchest 13y ago"Plus" code isn't open, is it?
- 616c 13y agoI would say the other way around, more like Fedora getting baked incrementally into RedHat when stable. "Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or RHEL) is a commercially supported derivative of Fedora tailored to meet the requirements of enterprise customers. It is a commercial product from Red Hat which also sponsors Fedora as a community project. Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux but there are several other Derived distributions available too." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux
- Nux 13y agoRHEL and Fedora are open source products (and this is the sole reason CentOS and ScientificLinux are able to exist). Since Nginx Plus will not be open source I do not see how this is a valid comparison.
- 616c 13y agoBecause Red Hat, despite being open-source software, does not release its binaries as compiled, and there are several key features (such as RedHat Network for Redhat corporately-supported yum repos, to name one) that means you can take the source and compile the core product that (CentOS and SL), but there are parts that are not released. That is from my understanding. You might not argue RHN is the feature, but what I understand from sysadmins the RHN subscription is one of the key features, in addition to a few others. So, it is not the same level as Nginx Plus, but you must be kidding me if you believe RedHat is 100% open-source. There SRPMS are open source because they have to be, not altruism.
- pcunite 13y agoWhat a fantastic product offering. They've clearly been listening to their users. For those of you who may not understand: when lots of people are using your product to make money ... you can charge for your services.
- AhtiK 13y agoMost of the Plus additions are reasonable as a separate commercial offering. What concerns me most is that "on-the-fly reconfiguration" and "advanced load balancing" [1] has been introduced as Plus. It feels like they freeze an existing feature for OSS offering and all the improvements on these primary product features will be commercial. [1] http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datasheet.pdf http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datashee...
- pilif 13y agoI fully appreciate the need for the developers of nginx to make money and I can understand that moving to what essentially is open-core is probably the only way for them to actually make money out of nginx (the thing works so well that selling support contracts probably won't do). But open-core shifts motivation of the developers away from something the community at large can profit. Whenever a new feature is debated internally, it will have to be placed in the closed or open bracket. The more complicated the feature, the more likely it's going to be closed. The more time spent on closed features, the less time is available for open ones. Worse, when people want to submit patches (it's still open source after all), their patches aren't just vetted for quality and whether they fit the overall product vision. They are now also vetted against an internal roadmap of planned commercial features, making it impossible or highly unlikely for a feature on the internal roadmap to ever by accepted from outside sources. This has a huge potential to diminish the product as it's available for the community at large. Combine this with the fact that purchasing the pro version isn't really possible without talking to sales (heck - it's not even possible to learn the price without talking to sales), the full product won't even be available for most of us (unwilling to deal with sales people) which makes this even more painful. I'm not saying I'll be looking to move away quickly, but I think it might be time to start evaluating possible alternatives as they come along. edit: To add something constructive: I would have much preferred them to move into a service business based on their knowledge about nginx and do something like a cloud flare competitor or other stuff related to serving HTTP, so basically anything they are now using as arguments for buying the pro version, but as a service. They would still be able to a) use their good name related to the backend technology and b) profit from their huge know-how of the internal workings of nginx to create patches and features for internal use. That would still drain some development time, but it wouldn't be wasted on polish and UI which is needed in this open-core case. :-)
- tux 13y agoCalm down folks, there will always be open-source version =)
- wildster 13y agoAnd anyone who wants to can folk it.
- w00kie 13y agoDo we actually know if this is a different closed source branch with all these features baked in the app itself or is it a service offering bundling other systems/scripts into a nice platform on top of everyday nginx? (i.e. can be re-created with the proper recipe, just lacking the support)
- helloTree 13y agoYeah, I can feel with them and it IS hard to make money with FOSS software. I think the problem is that the argument "You can sell support and consultancy to your software." is a little bit flawed as it contradicts with one fundamental purpose of software development: automating things; So things should just work and if you are able to build a software that is easy to install, start and configure the user has no demand for support.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gexla 13y agoI have been finding that my love for Docker creates complications with software I like to use. For example, Ansible AWX (the GUI version) charges after 10 nodes. If I want to do something where I would need to treat a container as a Node (honestly, I'm not sure I would, but perhaps a case could pop up) then perhaps just one application could sprawl over a handful of nodes. With Nginx, the dynamic configuration would be useful (assuming I'm interpreting this functionality correctly) to manage containers which are regularly going on and offline. In each case, the developers were probably thinking big enterprise vs small developers, but these lines are being blurred a bit. Incidentally, there is a community module for dynamic configuration, though I'm sure it's not nearly the level of awesome as the Nginx Plus functionality. Edit: Nice, looks like I'm hell banned again. Thanks, that should save me some time from commenting here.
- grey-area 13y agoI really like this, my only concern is that they don't link prominently to nginx.org - that worries me because the open source and free version is necessary for this commercial version to exist - if they get rid of it, I think many would reconsider using nginx long-term. I don't see a link on this page anywhere.
- mrintegrity 13y agoSo do most people use Nginx as a load balancer and webserver? I am using Apache webservers behind a fronted running Pound proxy (www.apsis.ch/pound). Pound is mind-bogglingly easy to setup and use, anyone looking for an Nginx replacement should really start there.
- lowglow 13y agoI'm a hacker who has built a ton of services with Nginx, and the concerns you all raised were my initial concerns as well. I've been lucky enough to work closely with the guys at Nginx (we even had an Nginx feedback meetup [shameless plug http://sfhackernews.com] http://sfhackernews.com]). Brilliant group. This product is built with your help. The roadmap reflects services you requested, but in no way would this company ever prevent the scene from offering additional patches, etc. that would serve to better the product itself. If anything, this should be a welcome hint that this company is seriously looking forward to the future of growing itself into a competitive entity that is vigilant about bettering what services/products it offers. /twocents
- moreentropy 13y agoApart from the Adaptive Media Streaming feature, all the "plus" features seem to be stuff that anybody can have with the open source version and some external scripting/integration: * Application Health Checking -> Nagios * Monitoring -> stub_status_module + Munin/Nagios * Advanced Load Balancing -> Chain Varnish / Nginx * Dynamic Configuration -> Seamless configuration reload without service interruption is possible in the open source version * High Availability -> Pacemaker or whatever... That's stuff that high traffic sites have covered themselves. But: Many normal Enterprise IT ops won't touch Nginx with a stick if they can't pay for it and have someone to blame should things go wrong. Plus, managers love shiny dashboards, buzzword features and fact sheets like http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datasheet.pdf http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datashee... Everybody wins.
- misterjinx 13y agois there anywhere a side by side comparison between the two versions ?
- dodyg 13y agoMay him make tons of money. Nginx provides more values than hundreds of million-dollars acquihires nowadays.
- antocv 13y agoAgreed. It is a bit sad though that free software has come to this choice, now needing to maintain a commercial and an open source version, and the conflict of interests that means and the possible diminished value of the open source product. But alas no other solution than this is really on the table for the developers to actually make money out of something so valuable to society. Donation-route? Didnt they have that?
- smacktoward 13y agoThe problem with relying on donations is that people don't make donations.
- FooBarWidget 13y agoThey did. Check out how many people donated: http://nginx.org/en/donation.html http://nginx.org/en/donation.html Hint: not enough to support yourself + wife + children.
- antocv 13y agoI assumed so, its a sad state of affairs. Its mostly private persons, where are the companies making huge profits from nginx? So its good they do like this with nginx plus, even if the open source version suffers, I wish the developers make tons of money.
- dagw 13y agoConvincing your boss you need to pay $1500 for a software license for some core software is fairly easy and all companies have procedures to handle it. Convincing your boss that you should donate $1500 to some open source hacker in Russia who wrote the web server you use is much much harder and there may not even be procedures in place.
- Nux 13y agoThese guys have given the world a lot and they deserve to make some money. Without people like them we'd be running abominations like MS IIS. I am not however very sure the open core model would work that well, people generally dread it as it tends to be crippleware. Serious question: can anyone name one open core product that is really successfull? If I were the people behind Nginx I would make my money through selling my technical expertise and support. Pretty much like RedHat make their money. On the other side, this would make room for some new projects or for older to pick up some new steam (e.g. lighty, cherokee).
- unethical_ban 13y ago* Redhat is somewhat open-core: They develop proprietary interfaces and products as well as the core OS. * Nagios.
- maheart 13y ago> Redhat is somewhat open-core: They develop proprietary interfaces and products as well as the core OS. What proprietary interfaces? Red Hat does have things that are not available to the public (e.g. RH network), but these are more services than actual products (machine management and patching can be managed using Spacewalk these days, and all patches are rebuilt and released by CentOS/SL). There's a bit more leg-work required but RH's whole business is based around adding service value for customers.
- adestefan 13y agoAFAIK their whole virtualization management stack is closed.
- Nux 13y agoIt's fully open source, it's called Ovirt, find it at ovirt.org. The one thing they do not provide to everyone for some reason is signed Windows drivers for QXL KVM graphical devices, but one can sign it himself need be.
- MatthewPhillips 13y agoI've been thinking about going back to Apache on at least one server due to Nginx's poor WebDAV support. This might just push me over the edge.
- ebbv 13y agoI love nginx and have been a huge evangelist for it. I also understand the need for the developers to make money. This makes me sad, though. I don't see good things coming from it. Open Source works because the motivation is purely based on making the best product possible. Once you have this open core model, the stronger motivation is on the money making side of things. This means likely the free version will stagnate.
- nilved 13y agoSo what's a good alternative to nginx? Not going back to Apache, that's for sure.
- tootie 13y agoSo, that's a lot of marketing speak. Is this being positioned as an alternative to products like Varnish and F5?
- ksec 13y agoI really dont get it. People have been using Nginx, saving money and time over the years. And not paying for a single dollar. And as you see from all these post, No sign, signal or movement of appreciation what so ever. Now you make enough money out of/with it. They want to survive and charge for some advance features. MOST of it are already being done with a few more simple scripts and manual setup. And you shout foul. Most of you didn't even need Adaptive Streaming Media Support. And so most of those features in Plus are already being used by you in some way or another. And if you really did need Adaptive Streaming Media Support, how about paying for it? And if you dont want to pay for it, how about some meaning donation to Nginx for something that you have used and take it for granted? Sometimes i really do understand why folks swear by GPL, or AGPL. And if anything, I really expected better, especially from HackerNews where StartUp gathers around. And StartUps are all about creating values, not destroying it.
- corresation 13y agoWho are you replying to? If you're actually replying to someone's point, reply directly to it. However the haughty, I-am-disappointed-in-all-of-you tactic is entirely boring and has been played out. The responses in here are mixed, but seem to be predominately supporting. A few mention the conflicts of interest that may arise, and of course they should: They're real and should be considered.
- Moto7451 13y agoI believe he's replying directly to the original post. I'm not necessarily thrilled at their move either (though I understand it completely) because the automatic expectation is that they're going to dilute the free product and focus only on the paid product. Other commenters have hashed out examples dealing with MySQL and Wordpress so I won't bother restating them. That said, being GPL or not wouldn't matter because they have the right to relicense their code under whatever terms they like. There's nothing that stops the owner of the code to put out a commercially licensed release along side a GPL version. Example: http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/ http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/
- beachstartup 13y agothe nginx, inc. CEO is the former vp of bizdev at redhat. http://www.linkedin.com/in/gusrobertson http://www.linkedin.com/in/gusrobertson
- coopr 13y agoCurious about what sort of advanced metrics you get with NGINX Plus? Install the NGNIX plugin for New Relic (both it and New Relic Standard are free) and you'll see a bunch of charts marked "NGINX Plus only" http://newrelic.com/plugins/nginx-inc/13 http://newrelic.com/plugins/nginx-inc/13
- j_baker 13y ago$1300 per server per year sounds a bit expensive, at least when compared to Amazon ELB. What's the benefit?
- mortehu 13y agoWhere are Amazon ELBs located? In Amazon's datacenters? Some people may prefer to serve static content and do TCP handshakes and slow-start closer to the customer. Other than that, I haven't seen external connections to Amazon break 5 MB/s, but that might just be me renting cheap instances.
- cpursley 13y agoAll this criticism odd. Having an open source and a paid premium product is very common in this industry. Over the last week or so been learning about nginx as a possible solution to serve up compiled JS apps. Rails asset pipeline is just too slow - especially on heroku. I've been working on my first real open source project - an nginx buildpack for Heroku/Dokku/Flynn optimized for static JS sites: https://github.com/cpursley/buildpack-nginx-js https://github.com/cpursley/buildpack-nginx-js
- iancarroll 13y agoNginx has had a Nginx SE that was around $1300 per month per insurance for a while now. This seems to just be a rename. I'm not sure how this suddenly starts worrying you, but the open and closed bracket has existed for quite some time.
- mmgutz 13y agoSo, I'm a little confused. Did the PLUS features exist in the nginx we all know and taken away? Or, are the PLUS features new?
- x3sphere 13y agoDoesn't seem like Nginx Plus is hugely different from the open-source offering. I don't get the backlash. You are paying mostly for support - not the product. I'm fine with that.
- pritambaral 13y agoNo, Nginx Plus offers features not found in the open-source edition. Closed-source features. Some people are concerned this new focus on lucrative money-making code would be too much and the devs' time would be lost on the open-source part.
- justin_vanw 13y agoWhether or not it's in line with the industry, the pricing here is insane. The cheapest is $1350/yr/server. For that you get... remote logging? Configuration reloading? Oh my... Zero downtime deploys? Is that a thing people care about? If you don't have server redundancy, having zero downtime deployments might be nice, but sooner or later you are going to have to reboot that machine, or you'll deploy broken code or bad configuration. Then what? If you do have server redundancy, zero downtime isn't even a feature. Not to mention, while nginx might have zero downtime, it's a fair amount of work to build an application that can be deployed with zero downtime. Maybe people are using nginx as a load balancer? If they are, and downtime really matters to them, they are seriously fucking up. I expect a lot of corporations to pay this just because of some policy that they have to have support contracts in place for everything, but honestly, this is redunk.
- X4 13y agoI predicted that, although I bet that they do it earlier. It is surprising that it took them until August 2013.