Talk:LAMP (software bundle)

message: How about Windows Server, IIS, Oracle, ASP ?
This is what's used in multi-billion corporate world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.76.27.83 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you have a source for it and it explicitly concerns LAMP, it won't be mentioned here. Furquan-lp (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIOA 

message: :BAPP Referring to *BSD, Apache, PostgreSQL, and PHP. This combination is preferred by experienced developers who place importance on features and stability, as opposed to speed and popularity.
The comment attached to this variant doesn't read as neutral to me. I would ask that we try to reword the comment or remove it.  This is the only variant to have a comment of this type. --Peteresch 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I've been in the business for a long time and I've never read any use of the term BAPP, nor ever heard the term used in my work.  Google searches confirm this obscurity (nothing relevant on just BAPP and only one relevant hit on the combination of BAPP with LAMP).  Regardless of the merits of this comment the passage is not NPOV and the term is not sufficiently widespread to justify it's inclusion in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimD (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAPP - Bias 

message: It seems like this is the much more appropriate title.  A simple redirect won't do, because there's history on both pages, and I'm not experienced enough with Wiki procedures about such. --Randal L. Schwartz 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge L.A.M.P text to here 

message: thats perfectly alright.
but it isnt a software bundle.
and my main reason to redirect it was, people searching for LAMP/L.A.M.P on wikipedia wouldnt get this page.
so let the discussion page remain as it is and let it grow.
while the article page remain precise and sweet.
- Amol V. Shah (a.k.a cyborg) 22:24 FEB 14 2006 (UTC)
:I don't understand.  If we merge LAMP and L.A.M.P to here, then the redirect will remain in place, so everyone will see the right thing.  Maintaining separate articles doesn't make sense if it's semantically the same item.  Also, "LAMP (software bundle)" is a disambiguator.  What else would you put in the parens instead (and if so, we should move this article there)?  But I think (software bundle) is as good as any. --Randal L. Schwartz 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "software bundle" is necessarily the best term. The bundle disambig page describes a bundle as "a group of products or features sold as a unit" - a LAMP installation would be just as much LAMP if you bought (sourced) all the sections separately and installed it bit by bit. I think the term "stack" may be more accurate. As per "solution stack", "software stack" or maybe "application stack". Jamse 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "software bundle" can always be patched up later.  The merge should happen now so there's no more separate divergence between this entry and the other entry.  In the absence of any sensible objection, I'll do the merge myself 24 hours from now. --Randal L. Schwartz 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is a bad term.  LAMP isn't generally bundled together (except as a part of a much larger GNU/Linux distribution).  It would be better described as a platform or stack.  In fact, LAMP is used as an example at solution stack. Any objections to moving it to LAMP (solution stack)? Superm401 - Talk 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the phrase "LAMP stack" is more common and more appropriate (since the components are conceptually layered), I also agree that it should be described as a "software bundle" for Wikipedia's purposes.  In the field of IT and computing a reference to "LAMP stack" is clear.  In a broader context it could be confusing. JimD (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bundle or Stack? 

message: I have Copied the text to the Article section.
But what about the original text.
Should it be kept at the original location???
- Amol V. Shah (a.k.a cyborg) 16:26 FEB 18 2006 (UTC)
:This is why I was waiting for an admin.  What you need is for an admin to "move" the old to the new so that all links pointing at it are also automatically renamed.  Let the WP:RM request settle out first, please. --Randal L. Schwartz 16:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn it, we already had edits on this page.  OK, to keep anything else from being mis-edited, I pulled down the mergefrom/mergeto tags again, and just put in a redirect.  The powers-that-be can do the final rename. --Randal L. Schwartz 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger done. 

message: wamp, lapp, wapp, wimp, fwap, flap, mamp, opal, glam, fwip, and whatever other platform articles there are out there should be merged into lamp. those articles for the most part only restate what is in the platform, which is already in the lamp article. the other articles can redirect to lamp.
: List of acronyms for reference: wamp, lapp, wapp, wimp, fwap, flap, mamp, opal, glam, fwip
WAMP LAPP WAPP WIMP FWAP FLAP MAMP OPAL GLAM FWIP -- Writtenonsand 04:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are! Fuck 'em! All those stereotypical near-autistic computer nerds should just take their information technology and go home! If it was good enough for great-grandpa, it should be good enough for us!  :-) -- Writtenonsand 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LAPP is a platelet adhesion inhibitor, stands for leech anti-platelet protein. The acronym does not occur in the LAMP article. The redirect should be fixed; I have noted this on the appropriate "missing articles" page. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging pointless articles here 

message: The reference to Primate near the beginning of the article will cause readers to be misled into thinking that Primate is as commonly used in a LAMP environment as are PHP and perl. In fact Primate is not common at all.
As originally used, LAMP referred to Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP. Later, many people began interpreting the P to refer to PHP and perl.  I doubt that more than a very small number of people seriously think of the P in LAMP as referring to Primate.
Rahul
:I did some clean up on the article.  It is pitifully lacking in content.  I referenced Perl and Python, but the P in LAMP clearly stands for PHP and the article should focus on PHP as the primary language, regardless of others using the acronym to promote other languages. See the reference article on the creation of the term LAMP for more info. Bytebear 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAMP does not include Primate 

message: Additional, and independent, Primate-related query: LAMP (software bundle) gives the P in the acronym as referring to  "Perl, PHP, Python, and/or (rarely) Primate, scripting/programming languages." -- However, "Primate" directs to the article Mono (software), in which the word "Primate" does not occur. I assume that this is not an error, but neither is it helpful for the uninitiated. Let's include a note of explanation in Mono (software) or fix this if wrong. -- Writtenonsand 22:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primate = Mono ?? 

message: The software section is pointless. Supposedly it's so that a n00b would know what Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP were. But at the very top it says that Linux is an OS, Apache a web server, MySQL a database, and PHP a programming language. I think that is enough. If they want to know the specifics, they can go to the conveniently linked articles. We shouldn't have a section just to fill up space. It's just stupid to have it here. ColdFusion650 16:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software section must be removed 

message: BSD variants I'm OK with. Postgres and Python instead of MySQL and PHP, definitely. But they're all free and open: this is an important part of LAMP. If you can't open the hood to rewire things your way, it's not LAMP. IIS is not a "variant" of the Apache-based systems, it is an alternative. --대조 | Talk 10:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is MSSQL as a database, but people still do use those when a free alternative is not available.  and PHP does run on IIS.   This is a good point and should be discussed in the article.  This article should not be written as a list of solutions, but a discussion of why those solutions are used instead of a standard LAMP setup. Bytebear 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft does not belong here 

message: VAMP (VMS-Apache-MySQL-PHP) (an orphan article) has a merge tag with WAMP (Feb 14 2007) which redirected me here. Most likely, the merge tag was never placed on WAMP as WAMP was merged here before that date. Does anyone know what to do with it? Squids'and'Chips 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: delete the VAMP (VMS-Apache-MySQL-PHP) article by having it redirect here as well. Bytebear 07:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VAMP 

message: The "P" in LAMP orginally refered to Perl, not PHP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.166.139.251 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 August 2007
: But PHP is much more popular than Perl. 58.177.85.161 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the P does originally stand for Perl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.90.167 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perl, not PHP 

message: Most Linux distributions include the AMP software by default.  This includes most of the full Linux LiveCDs, so anyone can easily try this software.  But the smaller "lite" Linux LiveCD versions do not include this software bundle by default.  And it seems that no other major OS includes this software by default?-69.87.199.127 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Linux is just the kernel, so the distros can contain all parts of LAMP, but not Linux itself. --84.60.254.237 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux includes AMP 

message: lamp is supposed to be open source software and mac os x thats not even on the mos realiable servers on netcraft on bsd and linux and on entry of windows is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the  

message: "open-source, and therefore easily adaptable..."
Is software easy to adapt because it is open source? That appears to be the implication of this phrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.5.254.28 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMP looks like it was copied verbatim from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_(software_bundle) without any further editing, even the title of the article still says LAMP, and the Discussion link points here, all a huge mistake!! 198.144.192.45 (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAMP screwup 

message: The article could mention, that the entire stack is not only free and open-source software but also free of cost. And since the LAMP solution stack comprises the operating system, an adopter needs only to organize hardware to run it on. This is not only a financial but also a temporal advantage. To run a MAMP or WAMP stack, the user needs to purchase the necessary numbers of licenses for the operating system (Windows, OS X) before he can legally run such a stack. This step is unnecessary when running a LAMP stack. Business models involving payment for adaptations or administration are non the less wide spread. Advantages and benefits of free and open-source software can be found e.g. here: Special:Permalink/579755480 User:ScotXWt@lk 23:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it all depends on what the definition of "free" in "free software" is.  No software is entirely free.  Of course, you need to pay a license just to start using commercial software, but for open source (or free) software you need to pay people who know that software inside and out.  Of course, that also depends on what's one going to do with the software.  In a few words, I'd say that it might be better to stay away from such inclusions into this article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Or not, because 1) that is not strictly true and 2) an encyclopedia isn't an advertisement. WP:FANCRUFT WP:OR WP:NOT I see what you mean, but User:Dsimic is right. I'm sorry that I don't know how to say it less bluntly but that's not exactly the way to do it and I'll try to enyclopedia-ize it.  That specific train of thought tends to produce murky verbiage which makes huge assumptions of all total cost of ownership (TCO) (business models,  personal skillsets, and available resources), and genericizes them to all people, places, and things. Freedom isn't free, and as the FSF says, libre is not equivalent to gratis, so we cannot genericize it like that.  Free software can be a lot more expensive and difficult.  I say that respectfully, as a fellow free software fanatic! ^_^ But because I know where you're going with it and it's essentially valid in principle, to channel your idea into something the article needs, there needs to be a case study or a scientific study of proven economics, and a Reception section showing reviews. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  free of cost 

message: 1) There is no need for too much information in the top picture. So it should be redone with out "Squid".2)There is no need to specify a Firefox browser in the second picture. This works with other browsers as well.QuentinUK (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  These are all good observations, but those illustrations should be pretty much redone from scratch if we wanted them to be really accurate they also contain other mistakes and confusing parts.  However, as drawing new illustrations isn't that much popular around here, :)  should take care of it until new illustrations are available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of diagrams is req'd 

message: Good morning,
does somebody know, why WAMP (now Wampserver) was removed (or is missing) in these stories about wamps/lamps/... ? 
See http://www.wampserver.com/en/
Thanks
: So, wampserver is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WampServer , as I found now. So it "only" need to rewrite ... ;-)
90.179.90.29 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAMP 

message: Hello all! Right now the second paragraph reads:
Since its creation, the LAMP model has been adapted to other componentry, though typically consisting of free and open-source software.  For example, an equivalent installation on the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems is known as WAMP (...)
which i thought made it sound a bit like Windows is open source software, well, compared to if we flipped the sentence around like this:
Although typically consisting of free and open-source software, the LAMP model has been adapted to other componentry. For example, (...) WAMP
and whilst we're here, shouldn't it be "the LAMP acronym" instead of "model" in this case? Bergamote (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small clarifications?