This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I didn't find any mentioning of nginx in that YouTube-architecture video Indeyets ( talk) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Removed. A random claim from a competitor is not encyclopedic.
jersey_emt (
talk) 19:47, 4 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)
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)
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!
Karunamon
Talk 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
If they want it to be pronounced engine-ex then it should be spelled Enginx. Sam Tomato ( talk) 17:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
A word about that would be nice. There are rulesets wich appear to work out of the box, but does it apply to all of them ?-- Psycho Chicken ( talk) 07:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
Wanted to throw this out there - everywhere official, when referring to the app's name does one of two things:
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.
Karunamon Talk 05:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Here's why:
Please feel free to revert if you think any of this is in error. Karunamon ✉ 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't possibly judge whether this is a problem with nginx or with its users, but wouldn't this page benefit from some mention of how often sites using this software are broken?
502 Bad Gateway nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
If it is badly configured sites, it's curious as the error is common enough on serious sites. This latest experience of mine is on clicking from choice.com.au to their forum site choice.community, (and entering the address directly gets the same result, so it is apparently the forum site that has the problem).
-- Alkhowarizmi ( talk) 11:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
We should use https in the nginx.com site URL in the infobox. Besides the fact that everyone should be using https where possible, the site contains software downloads. Of course people should verify software downloads through other means, but for less sophisticated users it is good hygiene. - Tystnaden ( talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please help expand this stub section. NGINX Unit is new and in need of elucidation. Kizerkizer ( talk) 02:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I didn't find any mentioning of nginx in that YouTube-architecture video Indeyets ( talk) 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Removed. A random claim from a competitor is not encyclopedic.
jersey_emt (
talk) 19:47, 4 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)
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)
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!
Karunamon
Talk 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
If they want it to be pronounced engine-ex then it should be spelled Enginx. Sam Tomato ( talk) 17:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
A word about that would be nice. There are rulesets wich appear to work out of the box, but does it apply to all of them ?-- Psycho Chicken ( talk) 07:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
Wanted to throw this out there - everywhere official, when referring to the app's name does one of two things:
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.
Karunamon Talk 05:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Here's why:
Please feel free to revert if you think any of this is in error. Karunamon ✉ 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't possibly judge whether this is a problem with nginx or with its users, but wouldn't this page benefit from some mention of how often sites using this software are broken?
502 Bad Gateway nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
If it is badly configured sites, it's curious as the error is common enough on serious sites. This latest experience of mine is on clicking from choice.com.au to their forum site choice.community, (and entering the address directly gets the same result, so it is apparently the forum site that has the problem).
-- Alkhowarizmi ( talk) 11:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
We should use https in the nginx.com site URL in the infobox. Besides the fact that everyone should be using https where possible, the site contains software downloads. Of course people should verify software downloads through other means, but for less sophisticated users it is good hygiene. - Tystnaden ( talk) 02:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please help expand this stub section. NGINX Unit is new and in need of elucidation. Kizerkizer ( talk) 02:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)