
Nginx Plus - Aqua_Geek
http://nginx.com/products/
======
pilif
I fully appreciate the need for the developers of nginx to make money and I
can understand that moving to what essentially is open-core is probably the
only way for them to actually make money out of nginx (the thing works so well
that selling support contracts probably won't do).

But open-core shifts motivation of the developers away from something the
community at large can profit. Whenever a new feature is debated internally,
it will have to be placed in the closed or open bracket. The more complicated
the feature, the more likely it's going to be closed. The more time spent on
closed features, the less time is available for open ones.

Worse, when people want to submit patches (it's still open source after all),
their patches aren't just vetted for quality and whether they fit the overall
product vision. They are now also vetted against an internal roadmap of
planned commercial features, making it impossible or highly unlikely for a
feature on the internal roadmap to ever by accepted from outside sources.

This has a huge potential to diminish the product as it's available for the
community at large.

Combine this with the fact that purchasing the pro version isn't really
possible without talking to sales (heck - it's not even possible to learn the
price without talking to sales), the full product won't even be available for
most of us (unwilling to deal with sales people) which makes this even more
painful.

I'm not saying I'll be looking to move away quickly, but I think it might be
time to start evaluating possible alternatives as they come along.

edit:

To add something constructive: I would have much preferred them to move into a
service business based on their knowledge about nginx and do something like a
cloud flare competitor or other stuff related to serving HTTP, so basically
anything they are now using as arguments for buying the pro version, but as a
service.

They would still be able to a) use their good name related to the backend
technology and b) profit from their huge know-how of the internal workings of
nginx to create patches and features for internal use. That would still drain
some development time, but it wouldn't be wasted on polish and UI which is
needed in this open-core case. :-)

~~~
coreyja
Counter Argument: (Not saying I disagree, just a different point of view)

It is possible that having a commercial offering, or a way to actually make
money off nginx, will simply increase development time over all. Yes, some
(most) of that will be towards the commercial product, but if they are making
a reasonable amount of money off this, it may mean more time spent on the open
version as well.

Also, with the nature of git it is possible for someone, or a group of
someones, to fork nginx and run that fork as the 'new' open source nginx. What
I mean is someone could fork the repo and if that one is getting enough
attention from open source devs, it is possible that the fork would become the
recognized version of nginx in the future. Not saying this is overly likely to
happen, but it is possible.

~~~
FooBarWidget
This is exactly what happened to the Phusion Passenger application server
(available as an addon for Nginx). Since the release of our (paid) Enterprise
version we have a lot more resources at our disposal, and development of the
open source version is now faster than ever before. Before releasing
Enterprise we would make our living by doing consultancy but that slows down
development even further. I'm very glad we decided to release an Enterprise
version.

~~~
m_ram
I think MySQL's three copyright owners (with a heavy emphasis on Oracle) gave
open core a bad reputation. I like reading stories like this because I think
it's important for there to be different business models for open source.

------
ksec
I really dont get it.

People have been using Nginx, saving money and time over the years. And not
paying for a single dollar. And as you see from all these post, No sign,
signal or movement of appreciation what so ever.

Now you make enough money out of/with it. They want to survive and charge for
some advance features. MOST of it are already being done with a few more
simple scripts and manual setup.

And you shout foul. Most of you didn't even need Adaptive Streaming Media
Support. And so most of those features in Plus are already being used by you
in some way or another.

And if you really did need Adaptive Streaming Media Support, how about paying
for it? And if you dont want to pay for it, how about some meaning donation to
Nginx for something that you have used and take it for granted?

Sometimes i really do understand why folks swear by GPL, or AGPL.

And if anything, I really expected better, especially from HackerNews where
StartUp gathers around. And StartUps are all about creating values, not
destroying it.

~~~
corresation
Who are you replying to? If you're actually replying to someone's point, reply
directly to it. However the haughty, I-am-disappointed-in-all-of-you tactic is
entirely boring and has been played out.

The responses in here are mixed, but seem to be predominately supporting. A
few mention the conflicts of interest that may arise, and of course they
should: They're real and should be considered.

~~~
Moto7451
I believe he's replying directly to the original post.

I'm not necessarily thrilled at their move either (though I understand it
completely) because the automatic expectation is that they're going to dilute
the free product and focus only on the paid product. Other commenters have
hashed out examples dealing with MySQL and Wordpress so I won't bother
restating them.

That said, being GPL or not wouldn't matter because they have the right to
relicense their code under whatever terms they like. There's nothing that
stops the owner of the code to put out a commercially licensed release along
side a GPL version. Example:
[http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/](http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/)

~~~
jtheory
Nope, s/he is replying to the HN responses in general ("And as you see from
all these post, No sign, signal or movement of appreciation what so ever.").

The overall responses didn't strike me as overly negative; most of the people
saying "this isn't a good idea" are suggesting other ways the nginx devs could
build a for-profit business around it...

------
Nux
These guys have given the world a lot and they deserve to make some money.
Without people like them we'd be running abominations like MS IIS.

I am not however very sure the open core model would work that well, people
generally dread it as it tends to be crippleware.

Serious question: can anyone name one open core product that is really
successfull?

If I were the people behind Nginx I would make my money through selling my
technical expertise and support. Pretty much like RedHat make their money.

On the other side, this would make room for some new projects or for older to
pick up some new steam (e.g. lighty, cherokee).

~~~
bigdubs
You misspelled "apache".

~~~
Nux
As in Apache is an abomination?

I do not believe that and Apache has saved our arses over and over since times
immemorial. Should've mentioned them, but it was kind of implied.

~~~
mh-
I think he's saying that people would be running Apache, not IIS. Which is
what virtually everyone on Linux/BSD ran before nginx's rise.

 _(I 'm both an nginx and apache fan, just trying to add some clarity here.)_

------
AhtiK
Most of the Plus additions are reasonable as a separate commercial offering.

What concerns me most is that "on-the-fly reconfiguration" and "advanced load
balancing" [1] has been introduced as Plus. It feels like they freeze an
existing feature for OSS offering and all the improvements on these primary
product features will be commercial.

[1]
[http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datashee...](http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datasheet.pdf)

------
moreentropy
Apart from the Adaptive Media Streaming feature, all the "plus" features seem
to be stuff that anybody can have with the open source version and some
external scripting/integration:

* Application Health Checking -> Nagios * Monitoring -> stub_status_module + Munin/Nagios * Advanced Load Balancing -> Chain Varnish / Nginx * Dynamic Configuration -> Seamless configuration reload without service interruption is possible in the open source version * High Availability -> Pacemaker or whatever...

That's stuff that high traffic sites have covered themselves. But: Many normal
Enterprise IT ops won't touch Nginx with a stick if they can't pay for it and
have someone to blame should things go wrong. Plus, managers love shiny
dashboards, buzzword features and fact sheets like
[http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datashee...](http://nginx.com/media/cms_page_media/21/nginx_plus_datasheet.pdf)

Everybody wins.

------
dodyg
May him make tons of money.

Nginx provides more values than hundreds of million-dollars acquihires
nowadays.

~~~
antocv
Agreed.

It is a bit sad though that free software has come to this choice, now needing
to maintain a commercial and an open source version, and the conflict of
interests that means and the possible diminished value of the open source
product.

But alas no other solution than this is really on the table for the developers
to actually make money out of something so valuable to society.

Donation-route? Didnt they have that?

~~~
FooBarWidget
They did. Check out how many people donated:
[http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html)

Hint: not enough to support yourself + wife + children.

~~~
antocv
I assumed so, its a sad state of affairs.

Its mostly private persons, where are the companies making huge profits from
nginx?

So its good they do like this with nginx plus, even if the open source version
suffers, I wish the developers make tons of money.

~~~
dagw
Convincing your boss you need to pay $1500 for a software license for some
core software is fairly easy and all companies have procedures to handle it.
Convincing your boss that you should donate $1500 to some open source hacker
in Russia who wrote the web server you use is much much harder and there may
not even be procedures in place.

~~~
jtheory
A publicly-held corporation could (in theory) be sued by its shareholders if
it just gave away profits like that.

------
helloTree
Yeah, I can feel with them and it IS hard to make money with FOSS software. I
think the problem is that the argument "You can sell support and consultancy
to your software." is a little bit flawed as it contradicts with one
fundamental purpose of software development: automating things;

So things should just work and if you are able to build a software that is
easy to install, start and configure the user has no demand for support.

------
lowglow
I'm a hacker who has built a ton of services with Nginx, and the concerns you
all raised were my initial concerns as well. I've been lucky enough to work
closely with the guys at Nginx (we even had an Nginx feedback meetup
[shameless plug [http://sfhackernews.com]](http://sfhackernews.com\])).
Brilliant group.

This product is built with your help. The roadmap reflects services you
requested, but in no way would this company ever prevent the scene from
offering additional patches, etc. that would serve to better the product
itself.

If anything, this should be a welcome hint that this company is seriously
looking forward to the future of growing itself into a competitive entity that
is vigilant about bettering what services/products it offers.

/twocents

------
ryansouza
Wish the page had more specific technical details and less sales-speak

~~~
mh-
+1 on that. and I hate having to submit a request for a salesperson to contact
me so I can get more info on the product.

my interest went from "oh wow I'd like to evaluate this tonight" to "blah.
this is sure to be a grating email dialogue."

edit: ..and even though I'd be willing to buy a small license now for
evaluation purposes that seems to lead to the same sales trap.

~~~
mh-
I wanted to add that someone from NGINX contacted me first thing this morning
with a refreshingly personable follow-up.

So while I still object to forced-into-sales-inquiry funnels like we were
discussing here.. I have to apologize for assuming they'd be bad at it. :)

------
pcunite
What a fantastic product offering. They've clearly been listening to their
users. For those of you who may not understand: when lots of people are using
your product to make money ... you can charge for _your_ services.

------
iancarroll
Nginx has had a Nginx SE that was around $1300 per month per insurance for a
while now. This seems to just be a rename. I'm not sure how this suddenly
starts worrying you, but the open and closed bracket has existed for quite
some time.

------
w00kie
Do we actually know if this is a different closed source branch with all these
features baked in the app itself or is it a service offering bundling other
systems/scripts into a nice platform on top of everyday nginx? (i.e. can be
re-created with the proper recipe, just lacking the support)

------
eminh
Sad news, although it was obviously coming. Glad for Igor and others involved,
but for me it is about time to start looking for alternatives.

~~~
cbg0
You need to start looking for alternatives because they put out a slightly
more advanced version only available to subscribers?

~~~
mordae
This sucks. Why? Because having e.g. "Adaptive Multimedia Streaming" in the
Pro version might mean that you won't get it in the open version since the
professional product would lose it's edge. I would much rather see a model
where features from the professional edition propagate to the open one after
authors earn enough from subscriptions.

~~~
traskjd
Who says they won't do that?

Not to mention: If you get value from Adaptive Multimedia Streaming then pay
for it. Why should they necessarily provide you value for free?

I'm personally getting tired of folks who ride the coat tails of "open source"
because they simply read it as "I don't have to pay" rather than getting
behind the ethos of what it's actually about. I don't know about your specific
situation to say this is the case here, just venting on a pile of comments
that are poo-pooing the fact these folks want to make some money from the
MASSIVE value they are providing the world.

~~~
icebraining
_I 'm personally getting tired of folks who ride the coat tails of "open
source" because they simply read it as "I don't have to pay" rather than
getting behind the ethos of what it's actually about._

What about the people who are fine with paying? Where can they get an open
source version of Plus?

Pretty sure buying _proprietary_ software is not part of the "ethos". Well,
maybe of the open source ethos, but certainly not part of the Free Software
one.

~~~
GibbyBorn
If they are fine with paying, why then they do not pay?

Amount of donations on this page:
[http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html) is
really suck.

~~~
anaphor
I just donated 20 dollars. Nginx is a really excellent example of how to do
concurrency correctly imo, and I think they deserve a lot more.

~~~
baudehlo
Did you pay more for your text editor?

~~~
anaphor
I use vim, so no. Also Bram Moolenaar works for Google so I don't think he
needs my money.

~~~
andreypopp
Of course he needs your money — it will be used to help children in Uganda —
[http://www.vim.org/sponsor/index.php](http://www.vim.org/sponsor/index.php)

------
MatthewPhillips
I've been thinking about going back to Apache on at least one server due to
Nginx's poor WebDAV support. This might just push me over the edge.

------
justin_vanw
Whether or not it's in line with the industry, the pricing here is _insane_.

The cheapest is $1350/yr/server. For that you get... remote logging?
Configuration reloading? Oh my...

Zero downtime deploys? Is that a thing people care about? If you don't have
server redundancy, having zero downtime deployments might be nice, but sooner
or later you are going to have to reboot that machine, or you'll deploy broken
code or bad configuration. Then what? If you do have server redundancy, zero
downtime isn't even a feature. Not to mention, while nginx might have zero
downtime, it's a fair amount of work to build an application that can be
deployed with zero downtime. Maybe people are using nginx as a load balancer?
If they are, and downtime really matters to them, they are seriously fucking
up.

I expect a lot of corporations to pay this just because of some policy that
they have to have support contracts in place for everything, but honestly,
this is redunk.

------
grey-area
I really like this, my only concern is that they don't link prominently to
nginx.org - that worries me because the open source and free version is
necessary for this commercial version to exist - if they get rid of it, I
think many would reconsider using nginx long-term. I don't see a link on this
page anywhere.

------
mrintegrity
So do most people use Nginx as a load balancer _and_ webserver?

I am using Apache webservers behind a fronted running Pound proxy
(www.apsis.ch/pound‎). Pound is mind-bogglingly easy to setup and use, anyone
looking for an Nginx replacement should really start there.

------
cpursley
All this criticism odd. Having an open source and a paid premium product is
very common in this industry.

Over the last week or so been learning about nginx as a possible solution to
serve up compiled JS apps. Rails asset pipeline is just too slow - especially
on heroku.

I've been working on my first real open source project - an nginx buildpack
for Heroku/Dokku/Flynn optimized for static JS sites:
[https://github.com/cpursley/buildpack-nginx-
js](https://github.com/cpursley/buildpack-nginx-js)

------
x3sphere
Doesn't seem like Nginx Plus is hugely different from the open-source
offering. I don't get the backlash. You are paying mostly for support - not
the product. I'm fine with that.

~~~
pritambaral
No, Nginx Plus offers features not found in the open-source edition. Closed-
source features. Some people are concerned this new focus on lucrative money-
making code would be too much and the devs' time would be lost on the open-
source part.

------
ebbv
I love nginx and have been a huge evangelist for it. I also understand the
need for the developers to make money. This makes me sad, though. I don't see
good things coming from it.

Open Source works because the motivation is purely based on making the best
product possible. Once you have this open core model, the stronger motivation
is on the money making side of things. This means likely the free version will
stagnate.

------
coopr
Curious about what sort of advanced metrics you get with NGINX Plus? Install
the NGNIX plugin for New Relic (both it and New Relic Standard are free) and
you'll see a bunch of charts marked "NGINX Plus only"
[http://newrelic.com/plugins/nginx-inc/13](http://newrelic.com/plugins/nginx-
inc/13)

------
beachstartup
the nginx, inc. CEO is the former vp of bizdev at redhat.

[http://www.linkedin.com/in/gusrobertson](http://www.linkedin.com/in/gusrobertson)

------
tux
Calm down folks, there will always be open-source version =)

~~~
wildster
And anyone who wants to can folk it.

------
ck2
So this is going to be like Redhat -> CentOS ?

~~~
dchest
"Plus" code isn't open, is it?

~~~
616c
I would say the other way around, more like Fedora getting baked incrementally
into RedHat when stable.

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux (or RHEL) is a commercially supported derivative of
Fedora tailored to meet the requirements of enterprise customers. It is a
commercial product from Red Hat which also sponsors Fedora as a community
project. Fedora is upstream for Red Hat Enterprise Linux but there are several
other Derived distributions available too."

[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux)

~~~
Nux
RHEL and Fedora are open source products (and this is the sole reason CentOS
and ScientificLinux are able to exist).

Since Nginx Plus will not be open source I do not see how this is a valid
comparison.

~~~
616c
Because Red Hat, despite being open-source software, does not release its
binaries as compiled, and there are several key features (such as RedHat
Network for Redhat corporately-supported yum repos, to name one) that means
you can take the source and compile the core product that (CentOS and SL), but
there are parts that are not released. That is from my understanding.

You might not argue RHN is the feature, but what I understand from sysadmins
the RHN subscription is one of the key features, in addition to a few others.

So, it is not the same level as Nginx Plus, but you must be kidding me if you
believe RedHat is 100% open-source.

There SRPMS are open source because they have to be, not altruism.

~~~
maheart
> There SRPMS are open source because they have to be, not altruism.

Disagree. I think RH opensources a lot of products because they really do
believe it's better (whether that be for "the community" or simply their
bottom line). Look at how many (large) proprietary software systems RH has
opensourced: Satellite (Spacewalk), SPICE, RHEV-M (oVirt)

------
mmgutz
So, I'm a little confused. Did the PLUS features exist in the nginx we all
know and taken away? Or, are the PLUS features new?

------
mh-
seems to be available in the AWS marketplace here (just found it by Googling):

[https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00A04GAG4/](https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00A04GAG4/)

unfortunately it's not available for cluster compute/HVM instances, so I can't
compare it with our existing nginx deployment.

------
tootie
So, that's a lot of marketing speak. Is this being positioned as an
alternative to products like Varnish and F5?

------
j_baker
$1300 per server per year sounds a bit expensive, at least when compared to
Amazon ELB. What's the benefit?

~~~
mortehu
Where are Amazon ELBs located? In Amazon's datacenters? Some people may prefer
to serve static content and do TCP handshakes and slow-start closer to the
customer.

Other than that, I haven't seen external connections to Amazon break 5 MB/s,
but that might just be me renting cheap instances.

------
X4
I predicted that, although I bet that they do it earlier. It is surprising
that it took them until August 2013.

------
nilved
So what's a good alternative to nginx? Not going back to Apache, that's for
sure.

~~~
clone1018
Why leave nginx?

~~~
nilved
I don't want to use it anymore. What's the difference?

------
misterjinx
is there anywhere a side by side comparison between the two versions ?

------
zobzu
so, nginx is no longer "fully opensource" so, fuck it. (yeah, i don't care -
its closed, i can't help patch it/fix it/what not => fork or use something
else)

note that i'd totally pay for support - its the closedness that bothers me.

~~~
dchest
_note that i 'd totally pay for support_

So why didn't you? Nginx Inc. had support available for some time.

~~~
weego
Because he was hoping to farm points off other zealots with his hyperbole. I'm
not sure if that is better or worse than him actually believing what he typed.

Either way I really can't vote these kinds of people down enough.

