[bnoordhuis]

Different design goals. Apache is meant to be robust, extensible and portable.

* Robust: that's reflected in its internal API that makes it near impossible to leak resources.

* Extensible: witness the gazillion modules out there.

* Portable: compiles and runs on very exotic or outdated systems. SCO, IRIX, Digital UNIX, VMS, the list goes on.

nginx and such were designed from the ground up with performance in mind - and with success - but the trade-off is a lack of portability and an API that is much harder to program to.

[kujawa]

Well gee. It's been a while since I've used Digital UNIX, Irix, SCO, or VMS.

Because they've become totally irrelevant.

Seems like a waste of resources when there are more pressing things to do than worry about the 5 people who (a) use VMS and (b) demand a bleeding-edge Apache.

[lambda]

No need to be so acerbic. They are providing a valuable service to you, for free. Apache is older, much more ubiquitous, supports more modules, has a more familiar setup and configuration system for many people, runs on more platforms, etc. It has more legacy issues, which are why it's so popular, but also why it moves slower. Nginx is much newer, doesn't have the same legacy issues, and so could afford to focus on speed.

There's a reason that Apache is installed on just about every random web host you can find, and has a module for every language or environment you need to deel with, while Nginx is a bit more of a specialty web server, usually used for dedicated sites that can spend the time to tune carefully for the highest performance. They both have their place.

It's great that Apache is still innovating moving towards loadable MPMs as well as adding an evented MPM. But it's not a bad thing that they're moving slower than a new server like Nginx; there's room for more than one great free web server in the world.