That’s fine, but I really don’t appreciate being told I’m ‘wrong’, we have different opinions, but that’s all they are. Pretty much everything you’re writing is opinion, not just any kind of fact.
With that being said, I just want to answer a couple of your points.
It is very common, search on Google: “Litespeed WordPress 403 error” and “Litespeed WordPress 503 error” you can find hundreds of results
Right. I just searched for ‘LiteSpeed WordPress 403 Error’ and got 36,300 results. I also searched for ‘nginx WordPress 403 error’ and got 453,000 results. I didn’t look up Apache, but I’m sure there are plenty of those too.
For many people, configuring nginx is much more complex simply because they are used to using Apache, so anything that follows the same familiar configuration system is good for them.
Again, are we talking about stability and safety in heavy traffic? (yes I am) so .htaccess is a joke to consider including that… when you say “but people like it” I think you really mean shared cPanel hosting companies like it because they can put 100 clients on the server using . htaccess and vhosts
No, that’s not what I mean, see my point above. It’s also not necessarily unstable or a huge security risk depending on how everything is set up.
I’m not going to get into a huge debate about what is the best caching for a WP site, but I disagree with you. In our internal speed tests with about 12 different WP caching plugins, all configured correctly, the LSCache plugin on an LSWS server and using Redis is always in the top 3 fastest.
the ESI function is one of the dumb functions ever made for WordPress cache plugins, how can the average WordPress site even begin to configure that correctly? which is made for bloated sites that tried to hide some poor performance… but it takes some genius to set it up correctly
ESI is incredibly useful and setup with the LSCache plugin is really simple, it just involves adding a shortcode to the areas of the site you want to exclude from the cache.
It has nothing to do with bloating or hiding poor performance, it allows you to set much longer cache times for all static content on the site, while ensuring that dynamic elements are never out of date.
Find any Alexa Top 100 sites using Litespeed server? I never saw any… just Nginx seriously
Putting aside the fact that the Alexa metric is massively flawed and not a true representation of anything at all, I don’t have the time or inclination to look at what servers each of your ‘top’ sites are using, but. ..
I’m assuming many of the top 10 will use GWS because they will be owned by Google, I’m also assuming many will report as CloudFlare Server and not expose what actual server the site is hosted on. Of whatever number is left, probably around 45-50% will be nginx, with the rest split between Apache, LiteSpeed (I’d guess probably only 2-3%), and other servers.
But the top 100 sites that have massive amounts of traffic are not representative of what most people are doing or need to do, they are sites that have large development teams and highly experienced sysadmins, with little resource constraints. They need to optimize things in ways the vast majority of sites don’t and I guarantee whatever server they’re running on, it’s not a quick ‘out of the box’ install but one highly optimized to suit their own needs. needs.
At the risk of sounding repetitive and boring, the two servers discussed here are very good, for some of the same and different reasons. Dismissing any of them and declaring that the other is much better is simply not true.