4 ms·

Oh, come on. It's pretty simple. You google a bit around for it and find some 3 year old blog post that tells you what to do. You'd probably have to do the same

by troels 13y ago

Oh, come on. It's pretty simple. You google a bit around for it and find some 3 year old blog post that tells you what to do. You'd probably have to do the same for nginx anyway. I prefer nginx' configuration syntax over apache's though.

Helianthus 13y ago
... hahaha exactly. I didn't say it wasn't simple. But simple is just sufficiently managed complexity.
hardwaresofton 13y ago
I'd like to point out that my first point was specifically towards reverse proxying... This page should be all the proof I need: http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies where as reverse proxies in nginx: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/using-nginx-as-reverse-proxy.html http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/using-nginx-as-reverse-proxy.h... So maybe you could make a case for nginx being less modular (or obviously so) -- but 1 config files with the right magic spell beats downloading x module and setting up x directory PLUS the magic file. Also, I think that in general, nginx fits more into the many-apps-different-implementations-same-server vision of the modern day web app.
- troels 13y ago
  That would be pretty bad proof though. If you ignore the chit-chat, which is just the authors writing style, and the ugly colour scheme, the essential part is here: http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies#d13 http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies#d13 That's 26 lines of configuration, compared to the nginx example, which is 54 lines. Both are kind of arcane looking, if you haven't used it before.
  - hardwaresofton 13y ago
    oh but what about installing the modules/files that are getting loaded? True, they're not night and day, but it's still stuff to do. Also, the page I sent, the actual reverse proxy is only 14 lines, half of it is extra stuff... The section where it says "start with example.com". And that's the whole server, whereas the

by troels 13y ago

Helianthus 13y ago

... hahaha exactly. I didn't say it wasn't simple. But simple is just sufficiently managed complexity.

hardwaresofton 13y ago

I'd like to point out that my first point was specifically towards reverse proxying... This page should be all the proof I need: http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies where as reverse proxies in nginx: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/using-nginx-as-reverse-proxy.html http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/using-nginx-as-reverse-proxy.h... So maybe you could make a case for nginx being less modular (or obviously so) -- but 1 config files with the right magic spell beats downloading x module and setting up x directory PLUS the magic file. Also, I think that in general, nginx fits more into the many-apps-different-implementations-same-server vision of the modern day web app.

troels 13y ago
That would be pretty bad proof though. If you ignore the chit-chat, which is just the authors writing style, and the ugly colour scheme, the essential part is here: http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies#d13 http://www.apachetutor.org/admin/reverseproxies#d13 That's 26 lines of configuration, compared to the nginx example, which is 54 lines. Both are kind of arcane looking, if you haven't used it before.
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  oh but what about installing the modules/files that are getting loaded? True, they're not night and day, but it's still stuff to do. Also, the page I sent, the actual reverse proxy is only 14 lines, half of it is extra stuff... The section where it says "start with example.com". And that's the whole server, whereas the