Talk:Solution stack

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LAMP isn't a very good example of a layered software system as the AMP are all co-planar.

a) Please sign your comments.

b) If you're not going to write your comments in English than I suggest you post your comments to the Jargon version of Wikipdia...oh wait, there isn't one of those. <grin>

c) Can someone please translate "co-planar" to an understandable form; pretty please.

--TMH (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that by co-planar, the author of the comment above meant that these software "layers" aren't layered as such, in the sense that each exists "within" the next one. I'd disagree with respect to PHP running inside Apache, though (details like external fcgi processes aside).

I think the "stack" aspect refers more to conceptually visualising which software makes use of which products (which looks more like a dependency graph, to me). In other words, "stack" as used here does not mean literally running inside each layer.

Incidentally, the article says "a solution stack is a set of software subsystems". A stack (in the data structure sense) isn't a set; sets are unordered. This might be worth clarifying. Kate (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP posted from Microsoft IP space. I don't know what they meant by "co-planar" in this content, as except possibly for LYME, the "AMP" aren't "co-planar" by any useful meaning I can construct for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better naming?

Any thoughts on better naming?

This article lists some broad options for low-level platforms (not even frameworks) from which to build dynamic web apps. "Solution stack" doesn't convey the web-app nature of this at all.

They are:

Web-based
Stacks, with ordered layers.
Ways of building "web applications", which is somewhat narrower than "solutions"

They're not:

Open source (all of them, or every layer)
Frameworks (in the additional sense that Ruby on Rails, CherryPy etc. are)

"List of ..." is also a possibility, according to local conventions (or is there too much detail for a mere list?)
"Comparison of ..." ?
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I'd recommend a name change to something like Server stack, Web server stack, or Web server configuration. — 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is horrible

Really, all this page does is talk about LAMP. If I wasn't so lazy, I would nominate it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.219 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems somewhat out of date. Nginx is becoming a widely used alternative to Apache web server and this is not reflected in the page. --Ross Engers (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it refers to a vague cheesy marketing term rather than anything valuable to someone interested in the subject. Better information is already available on other pages. 76.168.83.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The name for the article seems to be more of a marketing term than a good description of what the article describes. (And the article itself doesn't seem to do much more than list items that there could easily be more of (you just swap in another language for PHP or another OS for Linux or whatever, and now you have a new 'solution stack' that you could argue should be included in the article, regardless of the notability of that particular configuration.). I.e., it feels like this is an enumeration of possible configurations. — 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

# The sounds like, naming an article for deletion, is a punishment? Is this some new criteria I am not aware of, in this Idiocracy?

# The term Solution stack is certainly not a marketing term, but it a term often used in marketing.

# The introduction could certainly be a bit longer. User:ScotXW^t@lk 22:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAPP

Free BSD, Apache, Postgre, Perl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.75.90 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this linked to by so many articles?

In light of the above suggestion that the article be nominated for deletion, I thought I'd see what linked to it to see if was providing helpful context.

It's linked to from a ton of articles, but many of them seem to be inaccurate (a word links here but the word in the article is something other than an OS/server/database/language stack) or there's a link in the See Also section for a page that covers something related to the Web but not at all relevant to a server stack. One example of the former is that the Ruby on Rails article described Rails itself as a 'full stack' with a link to this page. WinFS is similarly described/linked. So is DirectSound. As a result, in many cases I think linking to this page would make the original article/subject more difficult to understand for someone who is new to this domain.

I'm not sure why someone would bother to make links to something so general and meta, but I think changing the name might help (assuming the article isn't deleted altogether). Something that includes 'web' and possibly 'server'. I think 'solution' should go as it doesn't narrow down the meaning or give any additional clue other than that these sorts of products sometimes have marketing teams trying to sell them to non-technical people. — 143.85.199.242 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because, while the term solution stack is not a marketing term itself, it a term very often used in marketing. ;-) User:ScotXW^t@lk 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]