2010/12/16 Juan J. <[email protected]> > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 00:39 +0100, Jędrzej Nowak wrote: > > In my opinion... Making something like this is 'not ok'. For me > > Cherokee isn't MySQL + PHP for example... "LAMP" was invented when PHP > > and MySQL was on the top, the same with Apache... The other thing... > > php-cgi (or fpm) is separate thing from server... (not like apache > > mod_php). > > > > For me, a "forced" creation Cherokee equivalent of LAMP is completely > > non-sense. > > I agree with you. > > I think when LAMP label was created OSS wasn't as known as today, and it > helped to describe a platform that was reliable, efficient and > affordable. >
Right. It used to be either .NET or LAMP, but we've gotten so many different options for each letter that it's not really worth acronizing them. It's not like anyone's going to understand what you're talking about if you say you're running a CLiMP stack. Just say "oh, I'm using cherokee on ubuntu server to serve out requests from php-cgi processes". Then people who have heard of cherokee, but aren't in enough to know these clever little things, will know what you're talking about. IMO, it's better to use the actual name if you want to promote it - imagine coming upon a pretty awesome website and noticing "Powered by CLiMP" at the bottom. That's going to be much harder to track down than a "Powered by Cherokee" message.
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
