Wow, who pissed on your waffles this morning?

I know far less about this stuff than you or Matt and my use of dedicated web servers these days is pretty much limited to reverse proxying node apps.

But Apache was always a struggle for me. Its config files felt arcane and I never really understood what I was doing with it.

Nginx feels like a breeze in comparison. I understand its config and its far easier to get it to do the (limited, admittedly) things I want it to do.

From my less technical perspective (though having used both a reasonable amount) my impression is that Nginx can do about 90% of what Apache can do and it does much of it better.

Now that I'm living in a country that uses the "ng" sound in a lot of the place names, "nginx" is a really hard word to read.

Yes, and ...? ¬_¬

The sole point I'm trying to get through the apparently lead-lined skulls in this place is that the remark "People still use X? Oh." is at best lame and non-constructive fanboy trolling. If you consider that X has more than twice the users of its nearest alternative, and will likely continue to have the largest user base of its class for the next five years, it makes the comment an incredibly dumb one too.

Whether or not X is or was any good is entirely irrelevant to that.

Why the fuck is it so hard to get people using their brains?

Hyperbole and facetiousness.

(i.e. it was less a statement of what is the case and more a statement of what Matt believes should be the case. That most people in most cases would probably be better served by Nginx than Apache. And he's probably right).

I think the point that Peter's making is that Apache comes bundled as part of a whole host of web hosting and devices, and most of them won't know better or even give a shit

So nginx is superior? So when did that ever matter?

J'accuse!

Because X having more than twice the number of users is a guarantee that something will be better? To dismiss the alternatives is also insanely arrogant, dumb and bordering on some insane brand loyalty fanboy-ism too.

 

Sure but fewer people use those sort of web hosts these days. It's all Digital Oceans and Amazon S3s where you spin up your own VM and choose your own tools.

Fewer which people, exactly?

And the .htaccess works (thus far) on client hosting.  :-O~~~

The stats that you base that assertion on, are they publicly available or did you just make them up? ;)

> The stats that you base that assertion on, are they
> publicly available or did you just make them up?

Plucked from his arse.

I don't doubt that more people are talking about those things, and they'll be more used in certain types of companies, but it's a lot lower than he thinks.

Hey there Dr Smithmeister!

Adding the complexity of partial page loads to your website indicates that you're working on improving performance, suggesting to me that you'd be interested in a web server tuned more for performance than Apache.

Even if you've used it in the past, Nginx has improved a lot recently - it's got a whole bunch of in-depth documentation, plus some cool features that definitely make it better than Apache. Give it a spin and see what you think.

To get you started, here's an example of how your could implement those rewrite rules in Nginx...

But that'd be like helpful and stuff, and why on earth would anyone want that?!?

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumptions than I am dismissing Nginx and that I prefer Apache.

I am not dismissing anything - they are both valid options (depending on the specific needs of their users), but neither of them is my web server of choice.

To be sure, I would accept a move to either in favour of the IIS I currently have to deal with, but given free reign... well, as it happens the one I'd go with appears to have both better performance and a smaller user base than Nginx.

\o/

And that is?

I love pizza! :)

YNOPRQBXEVWUZISJCDFGHAKLMT

?

*rein.