Talk:LAMP (software bundle)

WIOA

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)

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)

Historical LAMP Factoids

Thanks for contributing these; this is what I actually wanted to find in the article. Here's hoping for time to add some of this history to the article. Bonus points to anyone who beats me to it. DanConnolly (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To define LAMP solely on the basis of software components does the topic no justice, I think. LAMP is really best defined as web application built with embedded server side scripting. For those historically interested, herewith a few factoids:

- the basic elements of interactive web pages (html <FORM> tag, http POST method, cgi server API) appeared around 1993, but were not commonly available until 1995. The server side language was unix shell scripts, no database in sight. http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/WCBirth.html

- David Hughes is the inventor of the LAMP stack, presenting all concepts and working code to a March 1996 conference. His solution includes a lightweight SQL engine ("mSQL") and a server side embedded scripting language ("W3-mSQL/Lite") running as cgi module. His solution is open source, but the license is restrictive. http://web.archive.org/web/19990219215138/www.hughes.com.au/library/lite/qauug96/

- PHP gets started as a set of perl scripts in 1995. It remained, by and large, a one-man project as late as 1997. PHP in its design combines the best parts of David's emdedded Lite with the best elements of Perl. http://nl2.php.net/history

- Monty Widenius is a mSQL user, but finds preformance lacking. He releases an API-compatible mSQL clone under the GPL, called MySQL, in 1997. Because of the better performance (mSQL did not have indexes) and the GPL license, MySQL quickly becomes a popular choice.

- Michael Kunze coined the acronym LAMP in an article for the German computing magazine c't in the summer of 1998. He uses it for Linux-Apache-mSQL/MySQL-Perl/PHP software stack.

- The 1999 O'Reilly book "mSQL and MySQL" still talks about David Hughes' stack, mSQL and MySQL, and Perl and PHP as equivalent components in a LAMP stack. The book does not use the phrase LAMP, though. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565924347/002-7811298-5052863?v=glance

- Early in 2000, Larry Wall joins O'Reilly and Tim O'Reilly -- who saw the potential of the web as an app delivery platform early on -- starts to market the LAMP concept in the sense of Linux-Apache-MySQL-Perl. O'Reilly starts the OnLAMP website. The acronym starts to catch on. However, Perl lacks the embedded quality that David created for Lite and was carried through in PHP. As a result PHP increasingly pushes out Perl for LAMP applications.

- ONLamp was launched in February 2001 - http://linuxpr.com/releases/3277.html. If you want an early citation for publisher recognition of the term 'LAMP', try Wrox's 'Beginning PHP4 Programming' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1861003730), published October 2000. The chapter divider pages feature a picture of a lava lamp (the subsequent 'professional PHP 4' features a Davy lamp), and I think the term is referenced in the introductory text. My copy has gone wandering, however, so I can't confirm... -- James Hart

- From 1998 to 2004, the LAMP concept rises to prominence. The components that benefit most are Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP. Each component goes through several revisions and the implementation of David's original idea becomes stronger and stronger. A large amount of open source PHP-based LAMP applications get written. Some well known examples are SugarCRM and PHProjekt.

- In 2004, release 5 of PHP drops the bundling with MySQL and replaces it with SQLite, which outperforms MySQL. Zend, the company of the PHP authors, partners with Oracle Corp. and IBM to create solutions for corporate needs, based on Oracle and DB2.

- From 2004 onwards the LAMP paradigm is implemented in numerous ways, using a variety of software stacks. Windows-IIS-SQLServer-PHP is as viable as Linux-Apache-Oracle-PHP, is as viable as OSX-Boa-SQLite-PHP. PHP has entrenched is position through the large base of applications that depend on it.

- By 2004 browsers had evolved and standardised enough that cross-platform client side scripting became a practical option. The relevant technologies are DHTML/Javascript and in particular javascripts new found ability to do http requests outside of the main page refresh. The catch phrase for this is AJAX.

AJAX changed a visual enhancement in traditional client server concept. It dont refresh the whole page. Just change a portion of the webpage ( By Bikram Choudhury ) SEO Expert & PHP MySQL programmer LAMP WAMP

In essence, the LAMP paradigm is "db driven web app with server side (and client side) embedded scripting". That is how it started in 1996 and that is how it has come full circle a decade later. The user view of this is that it is now possible to centrally host an application that can be accessed everywhere through a browser with an end-user experience that is similar to classic VB/Delphi apps. It may not be quite as rich, but it is good enough. Its greatest stengths (the unix philosophy: simple, modular approach; everything is text) is also its greatest weakness (bits of arcane code all over the place). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.196.36 (talk • contribs) 17 September 2005.

BAPP - Bias

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)

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)

merge L.A.M.P text to here

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)

Bundle or Stack?

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)

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)

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)

I've put in a request at WP:RM to finish the merge. --Randal L. Schwartz 09:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

stack is in more common usage - and it has a motivation; a metaphor (literally a stack) - programming language on top of the web server on top of the operating system. They are "stacked" up on top of each other. (I left out MySQL for an obvious reason, but the acronym demands the M somewhere LMAP doesn't work so well...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

merger done.

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)

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)

I'm not quite sure what there was to move here. Someone created a copy of this at L.A.M.P on 11 February, with little to no content, and it was merged to this article a few days later. Merging edit histories does not make sense in this case, so I think that's it, ne? —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Lamp Blog

Guys, i am still a novice in this category. Was familiar with the term hardly a yera ago. Dont get time for much development, since in final year of my engg course. But still out of curosity i have started a blog on blogspot. its named http://www.lampblog.blogspot.com. Feel free to comment and post article. But i think to post, you need a membership at blogspot. Also you can be a member of this blog, just let me know. I'll send u ppl an invite, coz this is how Blogspot works.
- Cyborg 09:53 FEB 22 2006 (UTC)

variants ordering

i think the order of the variants list needs to be rethought. it just strikes me as odd the amps is toward the top of the list and amp is at the very bottom. logically, they should be together. and lamp, lamps, and bright lamp should be at the top since they are very close to the original. as for the rest of the list, it may or may not need to be reordered.

merging pointless articles here

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)

These acronyms are ridiculous. When I read the LAMP page and saw someone had actually recorded all these combinations, I could only imagine the stereotypical near-autistic computer nerd fastidiously enumerating all possible four-letter-acronyms relating to web server technologies... :S 129.173.212.221 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

LAMP does not include Primate

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)

Primate = Mono ??

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) RTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.115.35 (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Software section must be removed

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)

Microsoft does not belong here

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)

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)

Break up LAMP and WAMP

Since this page has merged WAMP, LAMP, and just about everything else, shouldn't it be named "AMP Stack", or something along those lines... As Microsoft, Linux, Macintosh, and so on, are now not relevant to the URL(s) and overall content... I came here from "/WAMP" and it redirected to "/LAMP (software bundle)". It just does not make sense. Or at least it should be broken down into LAMP, WAMP, and maybe MAMP, as those are the big 3. Or perhaps, one general "AMP Stack" page, "LAMP Stack", and "WAMP Stack". Vorlion 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This also satisfies the above comment about getting rid of IIS, though I would just leave it be as a one liner explaining the acronym. Vorlion 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think because LAMP was the original concept and has a history, we should start there, and then discuss other adaptive stacks. I have no problem having WAMP redirect here. Bytebear 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LAMP refers to Linux, there is no way around that. WAMP is the Windows version of Apache, PHP, MySQL, there is also not a way around that... I have been providing a WAMP distribution since 2003 at http://www.devside.net/ and this really does not make much sense to me, categorizing everything under LAMP. Though a redirect is just fine, if there is not enough specifics for WAMP and the rest -- which it looks like is the case.

Personally, I would rather have...

General "AMP Stack", with history and general info, "LAMP Stack" sub-section, "WAMP Stack" sub-section, "other acronyms" sub-section.

Everything like LAMP, WAMP, etc, redirecting to "AMP Stack"

Just a thought, nothing more. Vorlion 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I would agree, except that LAMP (using all free software) was the original concept. Changing Linux to Windows breaks the "free" concept that is a critical point of the stack. I agree that Windows is used as much as Linux. I actually develop on Windows and upload to Linux, so that makes my platfomr WAMP->LAMP? The problem is, although it is popular, using Windows instead of Linux is one of many adaptations on the original LAMP concept. Thanks for your input. Bytebear 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"I actually develop on Windows and upload to Linux..." As long as you are using the 'Web-Developer Server' Suite, from devside.net, for your WAMP needs, I'm okay with the rest. Vorlion 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice plug, but I use Zend Studio, and a proprietary core engine designed by me. Oh, and I use Oracle too (so I guess its WAOP->LAOP). Bytebear 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WAOZPP (zend,proprietary php) is better... How has the Zend IDE worked out for you? Is it worth it, over an editor? Vorlion 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I will answer on your talk page (as I don't think everyone editing or reading this page really cares). I will point out that LAMP is a defined structured approach with a specific history and design. Others have adapted it, but it already is getting silly with all the possible variations. Bytebear 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually come to see your point, and I agree... As the other acronyms are more of a branch, rather than a parallel, of the main LAMP acronym. When history, design, and other factors are included in the discussion. Vorlion 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To make this a good article, it makes more sense to discuss the reasons why people choose Windows over Linux in certain cases, and find references (probably in tech manuals, well established websites). The problem is, everyone is selling a solution, so this should not be about that, but rather about the scholarly aspects of LAMP and its derivatives. Bytebear 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WAMP vs. LAMP for home users, or Apache/Linux vs. IIS/Windows for corporations? Vorlion 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

depends on the corporation. I work for a Fortune 500 company, who's main source of income is internet sales, and we use LAMP, well LAOP technically. Also, Yahoo! uses LAMP as I understand it, so LAMP is not a home solution, but can be used at the enterprise level. MS wants you to believe they are the only corporate solution, but smart companies know better. Bytebear`

Looks like we now also have SAMP, see http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/amp/index.html Vorlion 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, evangelical bias for a particular operating system (however noble, cheap and excellently coded) should be avoided. Redirecting all the acronyms to LAMP is like redirecting all operating systems to Windows. Hence I strongly support the suggestion of a single article "AMP Stack", to which all the acronyms should be redirected. This gives a more balanced view to the reader, who might otherwise think that Wikipedia has a bias towards Linux rather than giving a balanced, neutral picture. Elroch 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed and discarded (for reasons with which I agree) in the indented discussion above. "AMP Stack" is not a known term. "LAMP" is the original "invention" and buzzword, and is the term worthy of an encyclopædic entry (which the article currently is not). Variations (on operating system, database, whatever) should be noted in the article, and broken off into separate articles if they diverge sufficiently from the original concept. "LAMP" would have been sufficiently notable for an article in 1998 when the term was coined. The subsequent variations do not detract from that notability.  ◉ ghoti 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

pmc (ghoti) says '"AMP stack" is not a known term'. This could be seen as an extrapolation of personal ignorance. A google search on the exact phrase indicates that the term is known and used on 330,000 web pages (the majority of which appear to relate to the same usage as here), including several on sun.com, tycoelectronics.com, slashdot.org, opensparc.net and other websites which may be widely familiar. As I said above, it would be inappropriate to divert all articles on personal computer operating systems to Microsoft Windows, even if that is used on 90% of personal computers. Elroch 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

VAMP

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)

delete the VAMP (VMS-Apache-MySQL-PHP) article by having it redirect here as well. Bytebear 07:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perl, not PHP

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)

Regardless, the P does originally stand for Perl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.90.167 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WIMP

There used to a whole discussion of comparable or alternative systems, of which WIMP (Windows IIS MySql PHP) was one. It is gone now. I see some have complained that it was unnecessary, or put here for newbies. Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a place of learning, surely a mention of comparable alternatives is perfectly appropriate, no matter how much political or economic hostility one may have to Microsoft. And this is especially true in the case of newbies, who after all, come here to learn. But to make matters worse, there is, as of this moment at least, no replacement article on WIMP. Knowledge should not be censored for political or economic reasons. Natcolley (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is meant to be about the growth of a particular stack of software which is notable because of its rapid ascension to the most popular programming stack on the Web. At some point, as usual, some well-meaning editor decided to include "alternatives" to this stack, and accompany them with their own cute little acronyms as well. However, none of these are notable for any reason at all. I could refer to the stack most often used at my work as "SIJJ" (Solaris, iPlanet, J2EE, Java) if I wanted, but this is just a made-up term for a random collection of software. it does not describe a real-world phenomenon which might illuminate some part of the world to someone.

The purpose of this article is to describe a notable software stack. It is not to "educate newbies" in the ways of free software, nor to prise people from the evil grasp of ASP, and keeping it on track is not "censorship". Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Linux includes AMP

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)

"This includes most of the full Linux LiveCDs" not ubuntu or fedora or suse or mandriva. Not on the 1cd live disks, only on the full dvd versions, if you choose it. Thats because its a security risk.

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)

what the

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)

Incorrect. Mac OS X has a closed source front end (Aqua Interface) on top of an open source back end (Darwin Unix)- so when you're doing technical stuff like serving, you're mainly using the UNIX back end anyway. The OS X Server console is just another front end to control the open source back end. This is in contrary to Windows servers, which use a closed source back end. And if you want to talk about reliability, I have a Mac Mini G4 in my basement that's been serving my website (which is AMP) for about five years now, and apart from a failed hard drive, which I'm sure you'll agree has nothing to do with OS X, it's never crashed. 81.86.226.32 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OSX servers are actually quite reliable. You can run apache, sanba, whatever on them. Under the hood, they are essentially FreeBSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is not understandable.

The Article needs an overhaul. --24.September.2009

Hmmm

"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)

I believe open source software is easily adaptable because it is supported by the community and the source code is readily available meaning something can be changed if you need it to be done so... Haysead ^talk 16:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

LAMP (software bundle) → GLAMP — We use Gnu/Linux. Linux is just the kernel. 169.226.64.185 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Not only is the term "GNU/Linux" objectively wrong, but LAMP is a pre-existing term and nobody uses GLAMP. Calling it GLAMP is original research. jgpTC 22:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. LAMP is the long-established name for this stack, or more properly for all the many possible stacks of this general pattern. GLAMP appears to be a neologism with little usage as of yet, and this is not the place to promote it. Probable early close if it becomes a case of WP:SNOW as I suspect it will. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Unreferenced. --Nigelj (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, and WP:AGF but there's a strong smell that it's unreferenced because it's unreferenceable... ie that the evidence if provided wouldn't support a move in terms of WP:NC anyway. And there's a similar smell that the reason that the proposed term GLAMP hasn't taken off is that most people don't find the arguments for it all that convincing anyway. Possible material for a section in the article especially if references for all this were found, but nothing to recommend this move. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. LAMP is the near-universal name for this. GLAMP is never used except for Stallman's SOAPy minority view. Per WP:COMMONNAME, LAMP is the appropriate name.
  • Comment: Exactly, and Richard Stallman is extremely citeable, so his view, especially if sourced, on the terminology would be a good addition to this article IMO. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No objection from me on that; my objection is only to renaming the article. TJRC (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I think we can relax about the chance of that... Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FAMP screwup

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) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

free of cost

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:ScotXW^t@lk 23:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cleanup, July 2014

Hi guys. I just performed a major cleanup of the article. The cleanup consists of the removal and and line editing of unallowable WP:TRIVIA WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTHOWTO WP:NOTJARGON WP:OR WP:NPOV, redundancy, and general verbosity. I was able to remove the warnings that the article was written like a fanatical advertisement, and remove the increasingly brazenly deliberately unencyclopedic content which had accumulated over time.

I realize that my original intention was to reassert (coherently, neutrally, accurately, etc) what the article was already asserting. The article is asserting that LAMP is this archetypal software model. But then, I realized that it's actually more like a meme within an archetype. This article is more of an umbrella subject, to acknowledge an Internet meme, a free software meme, and a sub-archetype. We could go further, in defining LAMP as a meme. It's an increasingly specific refinement upon the truly generic and archetypal software model of "operating system, web server, database, application". LAMP didn't invent that, and isn't even a singularly discrete product; it's a meme or model which explosively popularized it. Both the very easy-to-remember meme name of "LAMP" and its easy-to-acquire software libre and gratis status were essential in establishing the meme and model like wildfire. Ideally, someone could find sources for the inception and earliest uses of the meme.

How would you say that? It's a software meme (is there such a thing or is that what a development model is?), or a lingual meme?

Furthermore, the article needs a case study or a scientific study of the proven economics specifically of LAMP (under the free software economic umbrella) and a Reception section bearing reviews of how people have saved money and time, reallocated organizational resources away from other models, or crashed and burned while attempting to deploy LAMP if there's something notably endemic to LAMP. Show WP:RS demonstrations of the significance of its software libre and gratis. We're not here to be fans; this subject bears the weight of probably billions of global dollars, the budding livelihood of empires, and the enablement of an emerging information society.

I would like to thank all past and future contributors, including notably User:ScotXW for illustrations. I'm out there making lots of tables and graphs using Wikipedia templates, but I've never done custom illustrations like this, and Wikipedia's future growth will be based significantly on multimedia and visualization. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Article looks much better, benefiting particularly from the removal of all the fluff we had in the article. I've cleaned it up a bit further, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey again, Dsimic. I remember you from your mighty work on ZFS. I had previously changed this article to say that Linux was Unix but I guess my memory must have been clouded by remembering my astonishment back when Mac OS was certified, which I had never expected to happen (but did) either! ;) So thanks for putting that back to Unix-like. I came up with that meme/archetype stuff while meditating in the shower, so I'd be interested to see what anyone thinks of it. SURELY there has to be some major techno-economic study and reception information out there. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, "mighty" is probably a too strong word in this context. :) By the way, there are various explanations why Linux isn't (yet) UNIX-certified, and some of them say that actually nobody wanted to pay for the associated certification process as no real benefits would be gained. :)

I agree that "LAMP" is pretty much a buzzword, but it's also widely used. You know, many people resort to programming in PHP because it's easily approachable, tolerates a lot of mistakes ($apple == $orange, so to speak, hehe), and allows for pretty much instant results yielding quick money. Those people had to call their environment somehow, and many of them use(d) Windows on which it takes a lot of time to get the stack up and running by hand instead of using various bundles – so "LAMP" and "WAMP" were coined. That's only my humble opinion, of course. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't saying it's *just* a buzzword, though it *is* a buzzword.  ;) I meant to say that when it's one of the most significant memes in software development history, that's a very very big deal. That's notable in itself, in addition to whatever it actually is, even though it isn't a totally specific "line item" product like "Photoshop" with specific results like "make glamor photos". It has transcended that level. In terms of building the web, the term "LAMP" is as significant as the term "server" or "web site". The meme (and the platform as an application target) is significantly responsible for the wider spread propagation of Linux, free software, and information technology in general, as well as making inestimable amounts of money. Inestimable, but I'd sure quote the heck out of an RS who wanted to try! It's about whatever the RSes say it is. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. LAMP is a buzzword, but a very important one at the same time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Clean up of diagrams is req'd

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)

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, :) these edits should take care of it until new illustrations are available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of how to refer to LAMP

I would like to open up a discussion to solicit opinions about what to do with a sentence from the article. I made an edit, from

LAMP is an acronym for an archetypal model of web service solution stacks, originally consisting of largely interchangeable components: Linux, the Apache HTTP Server, the MySQL relational database management system, and the PHP programming language.

to

LAMP (Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP) is an archetypal model of web service solution stacks, originally consisting of largely interchangeable components: Linux, the Apache HTTP Server, the MySQL relational database management system, and the PHP programming language.

and this edit was reverted by User:Dsimic. His reason for the revert was, "LAMP is an acronym, and it's already explained in the lede's opening paragraph".

I agree with what I understand is Dsimic's reasoning. Now that it's pointed out to me, I think my edit was redundant in that we are saying Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP twice in the same sentence. But I also think that as it was before (the first paragraph in blockquotes above) it was not entirely clear to the reader where the acronym was coming from. So, reduce redundancy, but also increase clarity. I'd like to propose a new edit, and ask what people think. Something like,

LAMP is an archetypal model of web service solution stacks, originally consisting of largely interchangeable components, from which it derives it's name: Linux, the Apache HTTP Server, the MySQL relational database management system, and the PHP programming language.

or perhaps better

LAMP is an archetypal model of web service solution stacks. It originally consisted of largely interchangeable components: Linux, the Apache HTTP Server, the MySQL relational database management system, and the PHP programming language, and is an acronym of the names of these components.

I'd be interested to hear what people think about those two proposals or if there is a better way of phrasing it they can think of. In the words of The Bloodhound Gang, "I'd appreciate your input". makeswell (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! To me, this might be the winner, made as some kind of a "hybrid" between the current lede and both proposals (quoted the whole first paragraph of the lede, for completeness):

LAMP is an archetypal model of web service solution stacks, named as an acronym of the names of its original four components: Linux, the Apache HTTP Server, the MySQL relational database management system (RDBMS), and the PHP programming language. The LAMP components are largely interchangeable and not limited to the original selection. As a solution stack, LAMP is suitable for building dynamic web sites and web applications.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the winner. Very nice :) makeswell (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, went ahead and propagated the changes into the article's lead section (with some minor further cleanups). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WAMP

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)

Small clarifications?

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)