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

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#151

Post by redblacktree »

lsaferite wrote: post #145
ars_technician wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this money going to the external contributors as well? Volunteers that submitted patches, tests, and documentation?

Arguably you are paying for a license that covers support and the ADDITIONAL functionality. Everyone still has free access to the core code that people contributed towards. If they were to take contributed code and lock it behind a commercial license, THEN you could get all uppity.

Others are pointing out that they routinely reject these features in the FOSS offering, citing a conflict with the enterprise edition. That's the worst part of this, imo.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#152

Post by eastdakota »

chrissnell wrote: post #56
dknecht wrote: post #37

CloudFlare generates 50gb/s of logs globally and have handled collecting this volume in two ways. Historically the logs are sent to a local syslog-ng through the use of a PIPE and the forwarded to central logger. This can be done with nginx with no patches by just treating the PIPE as file. Just make sure you do a little buffering inside nginx. access_log /dev/nginx_access log_format_name buffer=64k flush=10s; Since…

Apologies everyone for the somewhat o/t question here but, what do you guys do with your 50Gb of logs every second? Where do they go after they leave nginx?

Here's a blog post on exactly what we log:

http://blog.cloudflare.com/what-cloudflare-logs

TL;DR: we generate logs at the edge, those are turned into aggregates to display analytics data (e.g., page views, hits, bandwidth), then logs are discarded unless you're an Enterprise customer in which case we allow you to download the raw log data for 3 days.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#153

Post by eastdakota »

sbierwagen wrote: post #80
chrissnell wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies everyone for the somewhat o/t question here but, what do you guys do with your 50Gb of logs every second? Where do they go after they leave nginx?

To the NSA, presumably: http://exiledonline.com/read-yasha-levines-introduction-to-t...

To be 100% clear: we have never been asked or ordered to share log data with the NSA. We've not participated in any program like PRISM and would fight vigorously if we ever were. We do receive law enforcement requests on occasion, typically to determine who owns or hosts a site behind our network. When we've received law enforcement requests for customer data (e.g., account information like the email address of an account) which we determine are abusive or do not follow the principles of Due Process we have and will continue to go to court to fight for the rights of our users. Whenever possible, even if the legal request meets our standards, we also notify customers of legal requests and allow them to challenge the requests themselves before turning over any data. We take this extremely seriously and spend significant technical, legal, and public policy resources to ensure law enforcement's job is neither easier nor harder by the mere existence of CloudFlare.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#154

Post by Mikeb85 »

makomk wrote: post #142
fsniper wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that danenania's comment which started this entire chain of discussion was portraying switching to software with an upstream whose goals were compatible - namely Apache - as an overreaction and somehow a betrayal of open source.

It is a reaction, one that is perfectly acceptable. However to slam Nginx because they want to sell their product is an overreaction.

Either accept that the Nginx creators can do what they want, or switch to Apache, but don't bitch about it. Whining that "X won't give me a feature for free" is ridiculous.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#155

Post by fsniper »

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…

I am not against someone deciding to ditch some software in any means they believe fit. But thinking any company should go on development according to other party's demands and otherwise asking third parties to ditch the software is nonsense.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#156

Post by fsniper »

mkesper wrote: post #91
danenania wrote: post #65

Why is this getting upvoted? We should ditch Nginx because they are trying to build a sustainable business on top of their amazing OSS contribution? When quality OSS projects like Nginx turn into profitable businesses, that's very good for OSS as a whole. We should be cheering them and gasp paying them if we need their high end features, not abandoning them.

This is "open core" model and it won't fly (and that's a good thing). They want to compete with an established, mature free software project. You can only do so successfully in the long run if you stay 100% free(dom) software. Why don't they sell real adaptations (not basic features they actively deny) + support?

That's some other model it is up to the owner to choose their business model. You may not like it but encouraging others to ditch software on this decision is not healthy IMHO.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#157

Post by fsniper »

fsniper wrote: post #155
makomk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am not against someone deciding to ditch some software in any means they believe fit. But thinking any company should go on development according to other party's demands and otherwise asking third parties to ditch the software is nonsense.

Ofcourse if the other party is not employing the developer company..

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#158

Post by lsaferite »

redblacktree wrote: post #151
lsaferite wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably you are paying for a license that covers support and the ADDITIONAL functionality. Everyone still has free access to the core code that people contributed towards. If they were to take contributed code and lock it behind a commercial license, THEN you could get all uppity.

Others are pointing out that they routinely reject these features in the FOSS offering, citing a conflict with the enterprise edition. That's the worst part of this, imo.

I don't disagree, but my point is that the code people freely contributed prior to this change is still freely available to the public.

If they are rejecting patches for features that impinge on their enterprise offerings and you have an issue with how the project is run now, you are welcome to not contribute, fork, or use another project.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#159

Post by mythz »

ars_technician wrote: post #124
mythz wrote: post #26

Sigh, another example of the worst thing about OSS - privileged, self-entitled users thinking the world owes them something.

They aren't self-entitled if the project has any sense of community and has accepted external contributions of code/documentation/etc. Lots of external hours go into projects like this and moves like these are myopic and generally a big 'screw-you' to active external contributors.

External contributors are usually not the problem, since they're intimately familiar with the project and know just how much time and effort the core team invests in it to keep it running. Contributors that have had a positive impact are usually given free commercial licenses, thanking them for their efforts.

The 'screw you contributors' is a common argument used by self-entitled users to try and shame core maintainers into continuing to devote all their future efforts, giving away all their future time and IP away for free - just so they can continue their unfettered use of everything they make, and for them to continue to provide support, so that end-user commercial products can continue to benefit from all their future efforts, uncompensated.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#160

Post by nulagrithom »

JasonSage wrote: post #104
jesalas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why's it over the top for my company to ditch NGINX because it's missing a feature that Apache httpd provides?

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.

I didn't get that at all from his post. "We really need to migrate off of NGINX" sounds like 'we' is his company, not the entire world.
Post reply on HN