(fast)cgi and nginx - there has to be a better way

Aleksandar Lazic al-nginx at none.at
Wed Sep 24 10:55:01 MSD 2008

On Die 23.09.2008 18:33, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> I've spent the better part of the day combing through docs and the
> mailing list trying to get MovableType working with nginx

Please can you tell me ehat do you mean with 'MovableType'?

> it seems the best option is proxying to lighttpd - everything else
> seems to involve hacks and copy/pasting scripts off the wiki

Which part of lighty do you use and don't find in nginx, except the cgi

> For nginx adoption sake, there really has to be a better way.
> running php via fcgi is a PITA, and most ways involve using lighttpd's
> fcgi manager trying to get a fcgi compatible perl app ( like Movable
> Type ) or a python app is 10x more of a hassle

For perl you can use for example


and for python, there are a lot of fastcgi / http implementation out

But yes, the user must adopt, in the most cases the application.

> looking at the history of cgi discussions, people often reply with
> stuff like "i hate perl" or "proxying to a rails/python app is just
> easier".  those aren't really answers to problems or trying to use
> existing software.

Yes, a cgi support will be great, but anybody must sit down and code it

> not supporting cgi makes sense, but the barrier to using fcgi with
> nginx is 'really fucking high' right now.

Depend on the knowledge and the leisure of the user.

If the user can't 'speak' the language in which the script is written,
yes you are right.

As I written before, it would be great to have a cgi interface but I
thinkg it is not so easy to develop a secure high traffic cgi interface.

> nginx is a great system - i hate that I need to proxy to something
> inferior like lighty for ease of administration and setup

Full ack.



More information about the nginx mailing list