I disagree. If you're talking about personal projects or tiny start-ups with full control over server configurations, sure nginx is a viable option. But I too find it unnatural for so many Rails-related blogs and books to ignore Apache and this is why:
Apache is an industry standard and there is no shortage of people who know how to deal with it. I like nginx, but neglecting Apache is a mistake: I find it much easier to talk to corporate drones if I mention that "Rails runs behind Apache". For many of them words like Ruby or Rails are already too much to swallow, why make matters worse by introducing yet another new kid on the block for no tangible reason.
Also there are hosting companies and your clients who may (and in most cases ARE) already running an Apache instance and have an admin who's in charge.
Basically what I am saying is that deploying on Apache is #1 thing to learn about deploying Rails, but it is by no means the only or even the best option.
Apache is an industry standard and there is no shortage of people who know how to deal with it. I like nginx, but neglecting Apache is a mistake: I find it much easier to talk to corporate drones if I mention that "Rails runs behind Apache". For many of them words like Ruby or Rails are already too much to swallow, why make matters worse by introducing yet another new kid on the block for no tangible reason.
Also there are hosting companies and your clients who may (and in most cases ARE) already running an Apache instance and have an admin who's in charge.
Basically what I am saying is that deploying on Apache is #1 thing to learn about deploying Rails, but it is by no means the only or even the best option.