It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.
What angst? That post reads more like a warning to others to me - after all, if they'd been aware of this issue from the start, they could've just used Apache from the beginning and avoided the hassle of having to migrate.
>NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.
From the post:
>admittedly amazing software
It sounds, honestly, like you're never going to pay for OSS. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, but to then write a post entitled "We should ditch NGINX" seems way over the top.
Because you depend on a tool that you're not willing to pay for .. is it so difficult to see that you are being viewed as a bit of a scrooge, given that you will profit greatly from software you don't own and haven't paid for .. ?
First, there is no proof of how much profit comes from nginx in a stack with PHP so you can drop the 'profit greatly' line.
Second, the entire point of open source software and the FOSS movement is that you shouldn't be extorted for functionality. Do you harass people that file bug reports or submit requests for features to the Linux Kernel for not paying?
The entire point of FOSS is being able to have the source code of the software you use. Period. That's it.
The people who write the software can do whatever the hell they want, as can the people using the software, as long as they abide by the licence. These are the only stipulations. Even RMS supports the right of creators to sell software.
People who write FOSS software aren't required to be a charity...
> People who write FOSS software aren't required to be a charity...
I think this is a point so many users of FOSS miss. I'm an ardent supporter of FOSS, but I don't get to act entitled unless I'm paying someone (and probably not even then).
Are you or are you not running a business with FOSS? It was Free: so any USE of the software that you get out of it, was profitable. What part of "this is free, so anything you do with it is profitable" do you not agree with?
Second: extortion, really? Thats what you're calling this, in the same breath as admitting that you won't/can't/are unwilling to pay for software that is a key part of the production line?
The over-the-top part is where you use the stigma from your story (how nginx spurned you by choosing to charge you for a particular feature, which does not seem fair to you because you need it) to try to get everybody to stop using it, when the issue is simply that it does not suit YOUR needs.
If nginx has no features that set it off feom other servers you could simply switch to Apache which has the syslog feature. But for some reason you do not seem to do this, or am I mistaken?
Hi everyone, I certainly didn't expect this strong of a response! I wrote the blog post as more of a slice-of-tech-life brain dump or request for comments/ideas. I certainly won't suggest that everyone should ditch NGINX, but it has possibly run its course for us. As I mentioned, I think that NGINX is an amazing piece of software. It's actually powering the very site where I complained about it. I just can't justify recommending licenses for it at work when we don't do anything with it that Apache httpd couldn't do for free.
You guys are right, The Site is poorly designed and suffers from a lot of architectural flaws. That's why I have a job in the first place! It's been a long journey getting to where we are and there's a lot more to do.
