You fags would argue about anything

Apache because it's the one I chose at random and I don't feel like learning another one

Apache is slow as shit and the attack surface area on it is huge. Nginx is very nice, but all the real high power features are locked behind a subscription that costs two kidneys and a firstborn. Still, the free version is the best webserver in common use.
But lots of languages self-host quite well now, and nginx ends up just doing reverse proxy work. If you're just doing that, then there are more tailored alternatives.

HAProxy is fantastic for reverse proxy and load balancing work. It's used everywhere for good reason.
Traefik is the new hotness for Kubernetes users. It's nice, but if you're not doing the whole containermeme then HAProxy is better.

Lighttpd

nginx because im not a retard

> Not using bash and nc as your webserver

If you strip down Apache httpd far enough, use event MPM and have AllowOverride None, the performance difference isn't all that big. Most processing time goes into the dynamic pages, which should be handled using e.g. FastCGI workers anyway. Static files use pretty much the same system calls.
I'm a big fan of nginx because of the config files, but they were bought by F5 this week. I really hope they don't fuck up, otherwise it's back to Apache httpd.

Nginx is obviously the correct choice. The only reason to use Apache is if you need a ton of autistic plugins.

Attached: fb_computer_science.jpg (2592x1936, 610K)

based

ganoo/lunix is a joke anyway, your web server might as well be

Nginx because configs aren’t xml. Only real use case for Apache where there is a tangible benefit is a single PHP instance. If you have multiple upstreams, nginx steamrolls it.

There's no question about it, Nginx has more features, updated more often and is lightweight. Although its license and distribution are questionable.

[kode]python -m http.server[/kode]