Talk:Nginx

Pronunciation

According to wiki.nginx.org/faq the pronunciation is "engine-ex" — Preceding unsigned comment added by XBytez (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

YouTube video

I didn't find any mentioning of nginx in that YouTube-architecture video Indeyets (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Fork

Re: "As with lighttpd, nginx is a fork of Apache 1.3 with the prefork MPM removed and an event-loop in its place."

This is obvious from even a cursory look at the code. Many major architectural aspects of nginx are obviously derived from Apache httpd, including the use of pools, the module structure, and other code directly lifted from the 1.3 source. The fact that it does not abide by the Apache License in such usages is another matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjag (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The copyright is 2000-2009 Igor Sysoev. I would suggest you find a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpash (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

First person

What is it with the "I currently have?" This isn't someones autobiography. I clicked on the link provided and it references lighthttpd. Something cited also from 3 years ago probably isn't accurate for today.Woods01 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --213.17.13.124 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ranking

I see this page mentions that Nginx is now fourth in total domains hosted but I think this is incorrect. If you look at the Netcraft survey you see that qq.com is third but if you check qq.com you will see that they are serving with Nginx. So in fact their total should likely be added into Nginx. I don't know if there is some other hidden factor but this appears true from checking the Response Headers for their home page (which is Chinese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.189.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement

This page looks to me more like an advert than an encyclopaedia entry. I think some of this content needs deleting. Ordishj (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A list of companies that use it doesn't tell me anything about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this page tells me a veritable cornucopia of... nothing. It should be expanded since I see this piece of software all over but with actual useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.140.7 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comments: this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nginx) is nothing but an advertisement for the Nginx web server. Any resemblance to a reference article is purely coincidental. The page should either be deleted or completely rewritten.

The article makes no claims to superiority to other webservers. It's just the facts. Would the random anonymous commenters like to cite reasons this article reads like an advertisement? MarshallKe (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of external link to solution stack

Many, if not most, IT related Wikipedia articles contain external links to various projects to assist the reader in finding usable solutions related to the subject. Web server software is often difficult to configure, which has resulted in numerous projects dedicated to simplifying their deployment. For those familiar with the subject, it is well understood that web server software on its own is not particularly useful without the addition of other components, which commonly include web scripting and database management software. Due to the importance of this relationship, there exist many solution stacks for various combinations of web server/database/scripting software. I will not list them here because I don't want them placed under threat of vandalism. All of these articles contain external links to sites where solution stacks may be freely downloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.227 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be removing the link as per WP:ELNO 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject, and is not supported by WP:EL, specifically WP:ELYES. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect regarding WP:ELNO 13. The site is directly related to the article's subject, as described above. Nginx is the primary focus of the solution stack, with other components playing a supporting role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.227 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By that definition, Ubuntu is a viable EL link to every application program and protocol that is included in it. The links section is for information and official home pages for the subject, not for products that incorporate the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your example is not logical. Ubuntu is not the primary component of any application program. Also, there is nothing in WP:EL that specifically states that "The links section is for information and official home pages for the subject". It appears that you made this up yourself. Having now slapped Twinkle on this, there is not much else I can do for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.227 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of the example is backward. Think of your SPAM as Ubuntu and Firefox, OpenOffice, Gnome, and other products as the primary articles to which you would go around linking Ubuntu. Second, I don't think you've read WP:EL

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

"Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" (emphasis mine)

Check the What to link section in particular. Finally, please sign your own posts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to clarify your muddled English. It does not make sense to say "Ubuntu is a viable EL link to every application program" in this context, hence my misunderstanding. Either way, any such application program is not the reason for the existence of Ubuntu. It is a flawed argument.

The link is not spam. You might like to do some research into what spam actually is. I find your aggressive assertion regarding spam insulting. I have absolutely no association with the linked site, apart from having recently used the software myself and finding it useful. My motivation for including the link in this article is entirely to assist others, as documentation on this subject is limited and difficult to understand.

You may have read WP:EL, but can you actually comprehend it? The phrase "Some acceptable links include... ", is not exclusive, so attempting to raise this point here is misleading. Also, I do believe the site content to be useful, tasteful, factual, if not strictly informative. Your emphasis on this single point is captious. You might like to consider that WP:EL is a guideline, not a list of rules to be slavishly adhered to:

"This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Apologies for not signing my posts. Although I have edited a number of Wikipedia articles over the years, I have never found the need to enter into a discussion such as this before. 59.167.122.227 (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. Without the application programs, there is no Ubuntu, it would just be another Debian variant. The fact that packages are bundled with it make it a complete alternative.

As for SPAM, it's an attempt to advertise a product. That's SPAM as far as Wikpedia is concerned despite this product being FOSS.

At least two other editors have weighed-in, so I wasn't wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note here, we are NOT a linkfarm. There are many sites that have the same 'directness' as this one (and I disagree, this is not directly linked with the subject). I would either suggest a {{dmoz}} for this, or get input from other regular editors on Nginz and see what they think. If other regulars here would support the inclusion of the link, it can/should be included. Discussion is the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the first comment that has made any sense, however your usage of the term linkfarm is incorrect. I still believe the link to be relevant and appropriate. Further input from persons knowledgeable on web server software would be welcome. 59.167.122.227 (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim "Many, if not most, IT related Wikipedia articles contain external links to various projects to assist the reader in finding usable solutions related to the subject." is an argument based upon WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those links should not be there. If they are on other articles they should be removed, not used as an excuse to add more bad links to more articles. I cleared out the bad links on the article that brought this to my attention and hope others clear out bad links from other articles. DreamGuy (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sorry to see those links removed as a result of having raised this issue. They are not "bad" links; that is simply a matter of opinion. As a computer programmer and amateur web developer, I have found links such as those immensely helpful in the past. I therefore implore editors not to go on a destructive rampage through other similar articles. I apologize to Wikipedia users who would have found those links useful. 59.167.122.227 (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Version

According to the official nginx web site, nginx.org, the current stable version is not 1.1.0 but 1.0.5. 1.1.0 is only the current development version. Yeysus (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Yeysus 20.Aug.2011

Apache 2.4 performance vs Nginx

In the performance section, it is noted that "For basic throughput and reduced latency, Apache 2.4.x is as fast as, or even faster than, Nginx".

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the neutrality of the source for that statement? Here we have a statement that thing 'x' is as fast as or faster than thing 'y', and the reference is a presentation by a spokesperson for the organization that developed thing 'x'.

Would we tolerate a comment in the "Chevrolet" article to the effect that Ford products are superior to Chevrolet products if the source cited was a presentation by a Ford spokesperson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it an Apache spokesperson making the claim or is it a neutral body? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The source is a slide deck from a presentation. The second slide indicates that the presentation is being given by Jim Jagielski, Co-founder, President and Director of the Apache Software Foundation. The presentation was given at Apache Con North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think, it's total marketing/advertisement bullshit. I did tests and on my system Apache 2.4.1 was even slightly slower than Apache 2.2.22 and about twice slower than Nginx 1.1.15.--213.87.135.6 (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some benchmark can be found here: http://mondotech.blogspot.com/2012/02/apache-24-vs-nginx-benchmark-showdown.html --77.37.139.168 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Another one: http://blog.causal.ch/2012/02/micro-benchmark-apache-24-vs-nginx-10.html 46.242.63.10 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. A random claim from a competitor is not encyclopedic. jersey_emt (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's referenced and so meets both WP:V and WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's be objective: "for basic throughput and reduced latency, President and Director of the Apache Software Foundation in his presentation bet that development version of Apache 2.4 in some specific configuration could be as fast as, or even faster...". But even looking through the reference I don't see any proves for that. There're only some strange and hardly readeable graphics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.111.1 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not objective. The earlier quotes don't indicate who made them. Its difference singles it out as such. I too don't see any proof for the performance increase, but it's stated. It also doesn't indicate who determined the performance increase. To be fair, none of the performance reports indicate what the configuration for the performance measures is. So we have to assume that they're out-of-the-box in those where Nginx is faster but we all know that there are hundreds of papers on improving the performance of Apache. So if we want to be objective, we must include all of that information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a self published document written by the President of a foundation that produces a competing product. I have an extremely hard time buying that this meets WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.242.170 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I have an extremely hard time buying that Nginx is better than other servers after proper tuning. In short, it is a RS, although it is a primary source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about differences in performance after proper tuning. There are citations for 3 independent benchmarks indicating that out of the box, nginx (generally) performs better than Apache 2.2. Jim Jagielski's claim is (at this point in time) has not been verified with independent tests, and therefore does not have merit. Once multiple and reliable benchmarks indicate Apache 2.4's performance compared to nginx, the results can be added to this article. Until then, this statement does not warrant inclusion. jersey_emt (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

2.4 != 2.2 You know if you fanboys would just do what you're supposed to do you'd find things like this: http://blog.zhuzhaoyuan.com/2012/02/apache-24-faster-than-nginx/ and now the claim is balanced and when additional independent reviews come out the whole situation can be balanced. That's how wikipedia works not just pushing of a point of view, but balancing claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing the whole damn section thanks to Walter Görlitz. A claim by the Apache Foundation's president that their product is better/faster/sexier/more fun/whatever cannot be presented as fact here, regardless of whether the next sentence says that it might not be the case. This is equivalent to putting "Nikon cameras take better photos than Canon cameras" in the Nikon page because Nikon's president said so. Adding another sentence saying "But independent sources disagree" does not justify the inclusion of the initial claim.

And no, I'm not an nginx "fanboy", and your statement regarding which just further demonstrates your own bias. I happen to use nginx for some products but Apache for others because neither is "better" than the other in all use cases. jersey_emt (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You're wrong. You just don't know how Wikipedia works. Its a WP:RS although it obviously demonstrates WP:PVO, but that doesn't make it unreliable or a reason to remove it. One simply needs to add a counter-claim and you restore balance, although the original numbers don't show complete information: configuration is missing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the material has changed since the majority of this discussion, removing it is vandalism: removing referenced material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk history clearly shows that seven (7) different users (myself included) are extremely uncomfortable with the material you have been repeatedly adding. Once again, it is a (presently) unverified claim by the competitor which has absolutely no business in this article. It could be argued that consensus against the inclusion of this material has already been made. Your very first comment ("Is it an Apache spokesperson making the claim or is it a neutral body?") indicates that you yourself believed that the material did not warrant inclusion if it was not from an independent source. You are the single dissenter against 7 different users in regard to this material. jersey_emt (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk history clearly shows that several different users are extremely uncomfortable with the material as it stood before I made my edits yesterday to introduce balance, which is what I stated needed to be done rather than removing the material presented from Jagielski.

However none of that explains why the entire section was removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My initial response simply shows that I hadn't read the reference. Nothing else. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history (esp. the little revert war), along with Walter's comments about nginx in this section, I think it's pretty clear that Walter either has an axe to grind or is just a griefer. Either way, he could probably call this a win, since it resulted in the removal of well documented claims of superior performance in nginx - we more or less threw the baby out with the bathwater, but I don't know what else we could do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.197.15 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll see if you look at the history and what I wrote that I made all of my edits based on policy. Don't assume that my actions are based on an axe just because I disagree with fans of the product. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy old edit wars Batman! Okay, I found a very recent source that gets into some of the nitty gritty here. A neutral third party, no less (a hosting company). I've summarized their results and a few drawbacks (which also mentions the .htaccess thing requested downthread) as WP:NPOV-ly as I could. Have a peek please! K_arunamon ^Talk 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge company info here

The material about the company is minimal. The bulk of the material and references focus on the product. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what's about 10gen article? Almost the same.--85.141.76.202 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First, you should focus on this set of articles and not appeal to what you think is another flawed article. If the other articles were similarly flawed, they could be tagged to be merged just as easily and WP:BOLD suggests that you do it.

Second, it's not even close. The 10gen doesn't have a paragraph about the product. That article is entirely about the company and only links to the article once in the body. The NGINX artcile has an entire section on the product that uses 50% prose than the information on the company. Only one of the six references are related to the company while the remaining five are about the product. That one company reference is by the company itself (primary source) and so that other article doesn't meet notability guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Given NginX widespread use, it seems NginX, Inc. is notable. They wrote software that runs more websites than Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickhigh (talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd be wrong about that on two counts.

1. The company has to have sufficient coverage apart from the products they make. See WP:CORP for the notability guidelines for companies.
2. And not everyone agrees that they run more websites that IIS. IIS is close to about 15% market share while Nginx is close to 10%, despite Netcraft's skewed numbers (most others show numbers closer to mine).

Even if they did have a solid second place, the two companies are not comparable. NginX, Inc. only makes this http server (and a few related products) while MS makes a many other products from operating systems, game systems, through to the world's most frequently used browser and productivity suite. Overall, that was a very weak argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

These articles should not be merged. If the company's article is poor, then it should be fixed, not merged into another article. jersey_emt (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is not the policy. Generally a company article should be independent of its main product article only if you show evidence that each are independently notable. Microsoft clearly is, since very little coverage of the company as a whole is mostly about its web server product. Merge. W Nowicki (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not merge, the company article NGINX, Inc. will be expanded in the next years including a complete {{Infobox company}} template. Oliver H (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with MERGE. The notability of NGINX, Inc. depends entirely with the software Nginx and they have no separate independent notability as they have released no other notable software or product other than Nginx, as pointed out by Walter Görlitz before. All info now on NGINX, Inc. should be integrated to their software article, in a comprehensive history section. I will implement this soon. The discussion has been unnecessarily exacerbated and delayed the merge for 2 years. --—-— .:seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Update on openBSD

I think nginx is no longer part of openBSD base. http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140827065755 Impossible to know why. 14:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jul (talk • contribs)

Do you want the article to explain why, with references, or do you want to know for yourself? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox company: location_country

The documentation at {{tl:Infobox company}} indicates that the location_country parameter is for the "current country of the company's headquarters". That's not an office in San Francisco, or any other satellite office, or secondary locations, or regional head offices, but the head office. There is usually only one head office. With that said, we should be adding a location_city parameter as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

htaccess compatibility

A word about that would be nice. There are rulesets wich appear to work out of the box, but does it applies to all of them ?--Psycho Chicken (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Nginx-rtmp-module

Nginx-rtmp-module has been tagged with Template:Merge to for nearly three years now. One could also question the notability of nginx-rtmp-module (WP:NOTE). Besides the nginx-rtmp-modules article, it also has no references besides external links to primary source (WP:NOCITE). Two sensible choices here seem to be to either delete the nginx-rtmp-module article, or merge into nginx. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Feel free to mention it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Name casing

Wanted to throw this out there - everywhere official, when referring to the app's name does one of two things:

• It uses the lowercase nginx, such as when referring to the package name, and in some places in the official pages [1]
• It uses an allcaps NGINX, such as some other places in the official docs [2]

At no official source can I find the proper noun form Nginx unless referring to the company Nginx Inc.

I don't want to start making mass edits to this without getting some input first. Any thoughts? Having Wikipedia be the sole holdout here seems wrong.

K_arunamon ^Talk 05:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it will fly. Jira is always JIRA, but the naming goes against naming conventions on Wikipedia. Add a requested page move and give it a shot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point on JIRA.. eh, don't want to waste time with something so minor if it's going to provoke a ton of discussion. I know Wiki has or used to have a limitation that all article titles have to start with a capital letter. I'll just add a blurb about the stylization instead. K_arunamon ^Talk 06:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You can always do what they did at the JIRA article and indicate that it's stylized a certain way.

And the rules are made to be broken: iTunes Store, macOS, and about a hundred more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Deleted. Here's why:

• Old: Most of these were approaching 2 years old with many edits since then.
• Self sourced: Probably acceptable. A lot of this article is documentation on what it can do with modules, for which it makes sense to link to the official docs for. A software vendor is generally an RS on how their product operates.
• Neutrality: I sourced the stuff about Nginx beating out Apache from what appears to be a reliable third party - as far as I can tell, this isn't a problem.
• Advertisement: Not seeing it - we have a factual list of what it is, what it does, comparison to another application.
• Short lead: 3 sentences. I don't see what other detail could be aded.

Please feel free to revert if you think any of this is in error. Karunamon ^✉ 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just restored them.

There were four templates.

1. This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (June 2015)
2. This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (June 2015)
3. The neutrality of this article is disputed. (February 2016) - eleven months ago.
4. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2016) - seven months ago

Half of them (not most) were added within the past year while the two remaining tags are less than two years old. Your claim is simply false.

The tag is self-sourced which includes primary sources. Yes, more than half of the references are nginx.org or .com but there are three that are not: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Https#SSL_termination, http://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade52.html#nginx, http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140827065755 All of this has to be addressed as suggested in WP:PRIMARY.

I have not read the prose recently, but the neutrality and advert are probably related. I suspect one could be removed.

MOS:LEAD suggests "no more than four well-composed paragraphs". The three sentences could easily be combined into a short paragraph. It doesn't discuss the performance issue, which appear to be its primary point of interest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I misread 2016 as 2015, so yes, two of the four tags were more recent than I thought. That being said, if you can't articulate a reason for the neutrality of the article to be disputed, or anything that suggests an advertisement (and let's not even talk about how silly it is for free software to be advertised), then replacing those tags is improper. The only articulated reason I see for neutrality issues above was the vs apache thing last brought up on this talk page in 2013, which I fixed a couple weeks ago.

I'm kind of a believer in the idea that something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I certainly hope my attempts to address this will not be dismissed as "fanboyism" as you did above. Karunamon ^✉ 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The date thing is an honest mistake. Are you suggesting that any tag that is placed without a discussion can be removed? It's clear that the features are only supported by the product, and WP:NOTMANUAL suggests that if they want a manual of all that the product can do, Wikipedia is not the place for it. I suspect that's why the advert was placed on the article. And, no, I'm not dismissing you as a fanboy, unless you prove yourself to be one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm suggesting. If someone comes by and slaps a tag on an article with no discussion, they have left no record of their reasoning. No attempt to seek consensus was made, and so IMO, any other editor should feel free to remove those tags if they disagree. "Written like an advertisement" in particular sticks in my craw because it's completely subjective (to the point of being unfalsifiable). Karunamon ^✉ 04:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)