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

Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

mailman.nginx.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 501 posts

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#191

Post by nickpsecurity »

synergy20 wrote: post #50
pbaam wrote: post #42

What a coincidence, some days ago I was reading some HN posts related to lighttpd and I found [1]. The link is dead and it has inappropriate content, so use arhive.org. The author doesn't go too much in detail of why nginx being purchased is a problem, but in how to configure lighttpd. And the first comment predicts the hypothetical case of F5 being problematic. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19413901

I have been using lighttpd which can also host static content and do proxying, on top of those lighttpd supports cgi/fastcgi/etc out of the box as well, and it takes 4MB memory only by default at start, so it works for both low end embedded systems and large servers.

I used it to avoid having to learn lots of stuff about web configuration that bigger servers might require. Between lighttpd and DO droplets, I could run a VM per static for $5 a month each with good performance. I’m very grateful for lighttpd!

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#192

Post by tiffanyh »

sschueller wrote: post #34

Is this what the security disagreements is about https://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-announce/2024/NW6M... ?

I don't see anything more in that mail list thread beyond the post you linked too.

Where was the disagreement hashed out, so I can read more?

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#194

Post by icybox »

tiffanyh wrote: post #186
nimbius wrote: post #182

>freenginx.org IANAL, but i strongly recommend reconsidering the name as the current one contains a trademark.

They could take the Postgres naming approach. Ingress was forked; the Post fork version of Ingress was called "Post"gres. So maybe name this new project "PostX" (for Post + nginx). Though that might sound too similar to posix.

... and postfix

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#195

Post by LinuxBender »

TimWolla wrote: post #187
LinuxBender wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for completeness sake and probably not useful to many people, HAProxy can serve a limited number of static files by abusing the back-end and error pages. I have done this for landing pages, directory/table of content pages. One just makes a properly configured HTTP page that has the desired HTTP headers embedded in it and then configure it as the error page for a new back-end and use ACL's to direct specific URL…

FYI: Serving static files is easier and more flexible in modern versions of HAProxy via the `http-request return` action [1]. No need to abuse error pages and no need to embed the header within the error file any longer :-) You even have some dynamic generation capabilities via the `lf-file` option, allowing you to embed e.g. the client IP address or request ID in responses. [1] https://docs.haproxy.org/dev/configura…

Nice, I will have to play around with that. I admit I sometimes get stuck in outdated patterns due to old habits and being lazy.

I'm a community contributor to HAProxy.

I think I recall chatting with you on here or email, I can't remember which. I have mostly interacted with Willy in the past. He is also on here. Every interaction with HAProxy developers have been educational and thought provoking not to mention pleasant.

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#196

Post by anotherhue »

tiffanyh wrote: post #186
nimbius wrote: post #182

>freenginx.org IANAL, but i strongly recommend reconsidering the name as the current one contains a trademark.

They could take the Postgres naming approach. Ingress was forked; the Post fork version of Ingress was called "Post"gres. So maybe name this new project "PostX" (for Post + nginx). Though that might sound too similar to posix.

Go roman? nginxii ?

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#199

Post by [deleted] »

kelnos wrote: post #156
droopyEyelids wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(not explicitly asking you, MZMegaZone) Does anyone understand why a disagreement about this would be worth the extra work in forking the project? I'm not very familiar with the implications, so it seems like a relatively fine hair to split- as though the trouble of dealing with these as CSV would be less than the extra work of forking.

It probably wasn't. There's likely something else going on. Either Dounin had already decided to fork for other reasons, and the timing was coincidental, or there were a lot of reasons building up, and this was the final straw. Or he's just a very strange man, and for some reason this pair of CVEs was oddly that important to him.

[deleted]

Re: Freenginx: Core Nginx developer announces fork

#200

Post by fl0ki »

Given this fork still boasts a 2-clause BSD license, the corporate nginx can still make the effort to backport patches. It's certainly harder than requiring a single converged development branch, but how closely they track Maxim's work is ultimately up to them.

If nginx continues to receive more attention from security researchers, I imagine Maxim will have good reasons to backport fixes the other way too, or at least benefit from the same disclosures even if he does prefer to write his own patches as things do diverge.

Though history also shows that hostile forks rarely survive 6 months. They either get merged if they had enough marginal value, or abandoned outright if they didn't. Time will tell.

Post reply on HN