Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

nginx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 408 posts

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#361

Post by bovermyer »

johnchristopher wrote: post #62
c0l0 wrote: post #49

I guess that signals it's time for nginx users to check out possible alternatives - just in case, if things turn out for the worse. I can recommend having a look at https://varnish-cache.org/ - while its performance might not be 100% up to par with nginx in some (very, very high-end) scenarios, it has many other fortes that nginx (at least in its FOSS release version; I've never used nginx plus) just cannot match in…

Then again most nginx users are going to be fine with haproxy/traefik in front of good old apache or lighttpd. Or even just apache.

The last two companies I've worked for used træfik and haproxy, and just this last weekend I converted my home clusters from nginx to træfik.

nginx is fine, but there are now other options that work just as well.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#362

Post by tingol »

nvarsj wrote: post #334
StudentStuff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others are happy to provide AGPLv3 code as SaaS, look at MongoDB's issues. You can build a ton of tooling around said code to enhance performance, adding features and billing, all while not modifying the core AGPLv3 code and thus avoiding the need to contribute back. This is a scummy business practice, but technically legal.

Why is it a scummy business practice?

Because your core business feature is done by someone else and you just take it and use it for your own profit without giving anything back. Do you need a definition of what scummy means?

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#363

Post by jve »

sethherr wrote: post #304
chinathrow wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can and do jump the incognito mode regarding ad cimplaints. I have proof.

Other companies do this too, so it doesn’t qualify as secret sauce.

These comments so much remind me of the infamous Dropbox comment when they launched: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Well, looks like you just have to assemble known parts in specific order to make something users like.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#364

Post by nvarsj »

tingol wrote: post #362
nvarsj wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a scummy business practice?

Because your core business feature is done by someone else and you just take it and use it for your own profit without giving anything back. Do you need a definition of what scummy means?

No need to be rude. I know what scummy means. It's just not clear to me why this is considered scummy. Anyone is welcome to take the open source and benefit from it as long as they comply with the license. This is a very fundamental aspect of open source.

A company invests money and engineers in building commercial tooling, which you then pay for because there is added value. You are not paying for the open source - which is freely available. How is that scummy?

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#365

Post by corebit »

keypusher wrote: post #325
dsl wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NGINX was already paywalling bug fixes once they launched Pro. proxy_pass for example will only resolve a hostname at the time the configuration is parsed, unless you use a convoluted variable hack. This was a serious issue requiring you to restart your fleet if a backend server changed IPs. The bug fix for this was implemented only in Pro and sold as "DNS for Service Discovery."

Put a load balancer between your reverse proxy and your backends. Problem solved.

What do you think nginx was being used for?

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#366

Post by Zariel »

snaky wrote: post #350
StreamBright wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a consultant working on Hadoop installations across the globe. As an average I usually able to save 70% disk usage and 30% overall cost by changing the defaults to a reasonable value as well as migrating companies out of HDFS to something like S3. I have spent majority of my career (10 years) working on Hadoop and I can tell you that it is a terrible piece of software with insane ineffciency all over the place.…

> This find | xargs mawk | mawk pipeline gets us down to a runtime of about 12 seconds, or about 270MB/sec, which is around 235 times faster than the Hadoop implementation. https://adamdrake.com/command-line-tools-can-be-235x-faster-...

Using hadoop/spark for When all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#367

Post by otabdeveloper1 »

fulafel wrote: post #353
otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The replacement should be written in a memory-safe language. Including the TLS library. No. Memory safety is a vanishingly small subset of all bugs and security problems. PHP is memory-safe, for example. Where has that gotten us? > "There is more to life than increasing its speed." Not if you're a computer.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or not. Just in case: all rce vulns in nginx have been memory safety bugs: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1004...

Read what I posted again.

The number of security vulnerabilities due to PHP's crappiness is two orders of magnitude greater than all of nginx vulnerabilities combined.

Yet PHP is a memory-safe language.

Memory safety won't fix anything by itself, it will just shuffle the shit into some other place.

Now if you're claiming that if you take nginx developers and force them to use Rust they'll somehow start writing better code, then that's a valid point. Although I'm in extreme doubt that it is realistic or even true.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#368

Post by throw0101a »

tommu wrote: post #186
gbuk2013 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everything. :) L4-L7 load balancing, distributed DNS, SSL offload, WAF, DPI, data centre firewall and other things. With a nice WebUI to configure all that. The Tcl iRules allow you to hook into pretty much any stage of the request or the response L4-L7 at FPGA speeds to do whatever you wanted to the request / response data. It's a very powerful product.

"..a nice WebUI" I challenge that assertion!

> I challenge that assertion!

For simple things it's adequate, but the fact that one can SSH is also helpful as there's a RHEL/CentOS base to work on. We're able to get Let's Encrypt working with a bash-only ACME client (dehydrated) is short order.

Heck, run Ansible on it:

* https://www.ansible.com/integrations/networks/f5 * https://github.com/F5Networks/f5-ansible

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#369

Post by throw0101a »

kayfox wrote: post #236
elagost wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use F5's at work. The F5's do their job very very well, but are very very touchy. I've always considered nginx to be solid, stable, and low-maintenance. I think the opposite about F5 and am worried about this transition. 1) You can't export and re-import a config. Just doesn't work. 2) For the Virtual Appliance (not a recommended scenario by F5, to be fair) it's temperamental about its host and doesn't like to be m…

I use F5s at work, heres some responses: 1) You can, if you are careful about what your doing. UCS archives are only intended to be restored on the same machines, restoring them on a different machine requires considering the master key for secret encryption and omitting the license from the UCS. If your restoring it on another model F5, you might be going about things in a sub-optimal way. 2) This typically relates…

> [...] omitting the license from the UCS.

I believe this has improved in recent releases.

It used to be that if you tried importing a config, and you were not properly licensed, the import would bomb out in annoying ways.

In newer versions the import will at least pull in and save everything (AFAICT), but anything not licensed will simply not be active. Once you cut the proper cheques then things should work.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#370

Post by okmokmz »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #354
quickthrower2 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that lose is pronounced looze and loose is pronounced looce I can see why it’s confusing.

I learned how to spell it in early grade school--maybe eight years old--so I don't understand what's confusing about it but I'm an educated man.

Very impressive...
Post reply on HN