Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks • Hacker News Board

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#351

Post by nathan_f77 » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:04 AM UTC

nwellnhof wrote: post #346

nathan_f77 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Artifex sued Hancom over their use of Ghostscript [1]. (The article says GPL, but Ghostscript has an AGPL license.) The judge denied a motion to dismiss the claims, and they reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount. I don't think many developers are aware that Ghostscript has an AGPL license, and I've heard that the commercial license costs $25k per year. It's very easy to just `apt-get install ghostscript…

> but this violates the AGPL license when you are running a SaaS application Only if you modify the Ghostscript source code.

From what I was reading, I think your interpretation might have been the intention of the people who wrote the AGPL license.

But I also know that the AGPL license is usually adopted because they want to sell a commercial license, even if the source has not been modified. Artifex is very explicit about their intention on the licensing page of their website.

It depends on the definition of “modification” and “derivative work”. Artifex is adamant that any software using Ghostscript is a derivative work, and the copyleft will apply, so all of your source code must also be released under the AGPL license. This is especially true if your software cannot function without Ghostscript.

If you are only distributing your application (i.e. not a SaaS app), then you could make Ghostscript an optional plugin that people can manually install (like LAME for Audacity.) But a SaaS app provides access to the application over the network, so you cannot use Ghostscript without a commercial license, or without releasing your application’s source code.

I didn’t see anything about Hancom modifying the Ghostscript source. It was the fact that they distributed Ghostscript along with their own application, and their application depended on Ghostscript for some functionality. That was enough to trigger the GPL copyleft, so they were violating the terms of the license and had to settle out of court. The AGPL means that you would be violating the license by providing access to your app over a network.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#352

Post by tyingq » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:07 AM UTC

pull_my_finger wrote: post #292

tyingq wrote: post #167

I wonder if load balancer and API gateway products might eventually converge. Things like Kong, Tyk and Apigee have caching, embedded scripting, basic load balancing, etc. They aren't as good as Nginx or Haproxy at it, but a single product outside the app would be attractive.

Curious how you think Kong falls short of Nginx. Isn't it built on top of Nginx via Openresty/ngx_lua?

Ah, yes. I was generalizing API gateway load balancing, which doesn't make sense for Kong.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#353

Post by fulafel » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #337

fulafel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The replacement should be written in a memory-safe language. Including the TLS library. "There is more to life than increasing its speed."

> 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...

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#354

Post by sureaboutthis » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:13 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #243

sureaboutthis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always amazes me how often I see this spelling error.

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.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#355

Post by StreamBright » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:22 AM UTC

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-...

Well this is great until you need more nodes. :) I am talking about the same scalability while maintaining a much lower ecological and financial footprint.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#356

Post by tomohawk » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

ddragosd wrote: post #180

tomohawk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on what you're doing, haproxy is usually a better choice than nginx.

I've played with both over time, and I was never comfortable with HAProxy's performance.

As a load balancer, haproxy is usually what you want. It has more tools in the bag for those use cases.

As for performormance, my experience is that haproxy outperforms nginx in the load balance cases. You have to go out of your way to configure nginx to get close.

Here's an interesting comparison:

https://www.loggly.com/blog/benchmarking-5-popular-load-bala...

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#357

Post by Chico11Kidlet » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:03 PM UTC

I still have hard time believing that commercial merger will result in Nginx remaining available as free and open source without any drawbacks and hidden payments for those requiring fully functional piece of software.

Let's see what follows.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#358

Post by pjmlp » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

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.

Maybe because not everyone is a native speaker that learnt how to spell it properly at eight years old.

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#359

Post by geggam » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:20 PM UTC

fnenrjfkdke wrote: post #320

chinathrow wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You’ll be surprised how many ways there are to track you even in Incognito

nah... after working in Internet Marketing I am convinced the only way to not be tracked is to simply not use any device or credit card.

That situation is so rare someone meeting those criteria could be tracked by the lack of that data

Re: Nginx to Be Acquired by F5 Networks

#360

Post by cprecioso » Tue, Mar 12, 2019, 12:24 PM UTC

vesche wrote: post #233

hannasanarion wrote: post #36

In the event that F5 pulls an Oracle and horribly mismanages nginx, runs it into the ground, or tries to close it off, I vote we name the community fork "nginy".

Or how about "nginext"

thank u, nginxt