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

We Should Ditch Nginx

hipyoungstartup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#131

Post by ars_technician »

nemothekid wrote: post #122
ars_technician wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, it would be like that (though this feature is more trivial and could be worked around, and is not an existing feature, so not exactly the same). That's the way companies make money when they segment their market and have an OS offering and a commercial one. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't like the rules set by the creators, don't use it; write your own software or use other software. If they had retrospec…

>What about OpenStack? Maybe Linux or Firefox? None of these projects turn to their users to squeeze money out of them to activate basic features. Thats disingenuous. Linux squeezes money out of users via RHEL and SUSE. Firefox straight up sells your data to Google (who in turn provides over 90% of Mozilla revenue). Even Apache, a "good" open source foundation, houses Cassandra, which is largely contributed to by Dat…

> Linux squeezes money out of users via RHEL and SUSE.

Linux is not RHEL and SUSE. You can use Linux without using RHEL and SUSE and still get all of the Linux kernel features, which is the entire point. That's exactly what makes it a good foundation. They aren't arbitrarily screwing their users out of features. There is no such thing as an 'enterprise-plus Linux Kernel'.

> Firefox straight up sells your data to Google (who in turn provides over 90% of Mozilla revenue).

This is a blatant lie that shows nothing more than your ability to troll. If you can't handle a specific search provider getting your data when you search, change your search provider.

>Even Apache, a "good" open source foundation, houses Cassandra, which is largely contributed to by DataStax, which sells its own version of Cassandra

It doesn't matter, you seem to be failing with basic logic. Cassandra may be contributed to by DataStax, but DataStax doesn't control the gate so they can't stop contributions that overlap with their product's functionality. nginx can and does stop patches that duplicate 'enterprise functionality'. See the problem?

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#132

Post by grey-area »

ars_technician wrote: post #109
grey-area wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps he doesn't have the hours/skills free to do so. People are free to complain about things or do a 'call-to-arms' about things they can't fix themselves. I think in the case of open source we have far too many people who feel entitled to the work of others without any recompense already. Working on a large OS project like this is mostly a thankless task - people will complain about the problems while taking for…

>Yes, it would be like that (though this feature is more trivial and could be worked around, and is not an existing feature, so not exactly the same). That's the way companies make money when they segment their market and have an OS offering and a commercial one. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't like the rules set by the creators, don't use it; write your own software or use other software. If they had retrospec…

That's what he's advocating...

No, he's not. He's advocating that someone else needs to do that work for him, so that he can benefit. He's explicitly asking other people to do the work at the end:

Who will pick up the mantle and actively develop the next game-changing FOSS web server? Fork it!

NB that statement was not - perhaps I will fork it, or perhaps I will contribute to a new FOSS web server, or should we help nginx solve this issue some other way, but a plea to someone else to do all the hard work so that he can use it for free.

You say that like all approaches to making money are the same and it's disingenuous.

That wasn't the intention or I believe the implication, the analogy above about locking user data away is absurd and unhelpful.

That's exactly what good open source foundations do. I take it you are unfamiliar with the apache web server project?

Some OSS works on the model of selling services, some works on the model of selling extra features and commercial licenses. Personally I'm agnostic as to which is best, but this is not a new or unusual development. Many companies from Ubuntu to Firefox do commercial deals and request money indirectly or directly to support their product. If you don't like those deals or disagree with the particular method used, you can use other software, but whining about it is not productive.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#133

Post by fsniper »

ars_technician wrote: post #110
fsniper wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you can always fork. That's a business they have the right to accept or reject patches however they like.

>No you can always fork. What are you saying 'no' to? They have a conflict of interest since they are clearly in the business of selling features. It was a statement, and saying 'you can always fork' does not refute that statement.

No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals.

If you want your patches to be upstream you should make sure they must be compatible with the upstream's goals. If you do not want to obey or play along with upstream you may become an upstream yourself or pay someone to be the upstream with your goals.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#134

Post by fit2rule »

ars_technician wrote: post #114
fit2rule wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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?

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#135

Post by nemothekid »

ars_technician wrote: post #131
nemothekid wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What about OpenStack? Maybe Linux or Firefox? None of these projects turn to their users to squeeze money out of them to activate basic features. Thats disingenuous. Linux squeezes money out of users via RHEL and SUSE. Firefox straight up sells your data to Google (who in turn provides over 90% of Mozilla revenue). Even Apache, a "good" open source foundation, houses Cassandra, which is largely contributed to by Dat…

> Linux squeezes money out of users via RHEL and SUSE. Linux is not RHEL and SUSE. You can use Linux without using RHEL and SUSE and still get all of the Linux kernel features, which is the entire point. That's exactly what makes it a good foundation. They aren't arbitrarily screwing their users out of features. There is no such thing as an 'enterprise-plus Linux Kernel'. > Firefox straight up sells your data to Goog…

>This is a blatant lie that shows nothing more than your ability to troll.

Source: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/21/mozillas-reliance-g...

Maybe I should have provided a source, but calling something that is easily google-able and was on the front page on HN a "blatant lie" is worrying. Why would I lie on the internet?

>Cassandra may be contributed to by DataStax, but DataStax doesn't control the gate so they can't stop contributions that overlap with their product's functionality.

Again, you should research your claims before assuming I'm lying. The project chair for Apache Cassandra is also the Co founder of DataStax - so yes, DataStax does control the gate.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#136

Post by Nodex »

Cry a larger river?

You choose to install VIA RPM.

As everyone says "fork it yourself". You're honestly boycotting the great speed and performance of Nginx due to being lazy.

In fairness their support staff are a bunch of tossers (one in particular - you know who you are) but it's a great web server period

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#137

Post by Mikeb85 »

ars_technician wrote: post #114
fit2rule wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#138

Post by Mikeb85 »

makomk wrote: post #108
fsniper wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you can always fork. That's a business they have the right to accept or reject patches however they like.

Yeah, and other businesses have the right to conclude that they'd rather use a full-featured open source web server than one that's crippled to create a market for the expensive proprietary version. Of course, some people in this discussion seem to disagree - I've seen a lot of people acting as though it's somehow unfair to nginx for him to point this out to other potential nginx users or to switch to a different ser…

They're giving away high quality software for free, with the source code, and a liberal open source licence. They don't owe anyone shit...

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#139

Post by TylerE »

delian66 wrote: post #118
TylerE wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks more like a factor of 2 difference to me: http://blog.zhuzhaoyuan.com/2012/02/apache-24-faster-than-ng...

The article's actual title is "Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?" . As most articles having a question mark at the end of their title, not surprisingly the answer is "no" ... Quoting from the article itself: >> It turned out that it’s a false claim. Apache 2.4 is actually much slower than Nginx!

Yes, that's what I said. It's a factor of two slower than nginx

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#140

Post by pjmlp »

ars_technician wrote: post #127
pjmlp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part of FOSS culture I really dislike as a developer. Many people seem to consider an offence that other developers need to make a living, instead of being grateful of being able to sell stuff using software they haven't paid a dime for. Then become outraged when the developers come to the conclusion that the baker won't sell bread for pull requests. This is what moved me into the direction of suggesting dual li…

What you are suggesting is the part of a greedy FOSS project. One that enjoys the external open source contributions, yet still charges for features in the software. It's disgusting and an insult to your contributors, unless you pay them all money as well. There is nothing wrong with making money, but don't to it with sleazy tactics like this that put you in a conflict of interest. Charge for support or a hosted vers…

Quite the contrary, let me explain better.

I am all for charging for support or hosted versions. However this usually only suits server side software or developer tools. There are plenty more of other types of software.

What I dislike are the companies that just use FOSS as free beer, specially in closed source products or behind SaaS walls.

So when asked for advice what type of license one should give to their projects, my recommendation is always to go GPL for open source projects. If the developer community gets contacted by commercial vendors, then either create a special license for the respective vendor, or have a general one for those type of cases.

But always use a license that prevents people selling your work as theirs.

Post reply on HN