The people who cannot run a daemon are certainly a subclass of people who cannot run a GLAMP stack. From the point of view of the user who does not wish to install software locally/persistantly, the models are equal. From the POV of a user who does want to run software locally, the model that does not involve a full GLAMP stack is simpler and more secure.
There is no reason why the interface to the daemon cannot be a GLAMP application. If there is a fork and two core daemons are written, one in PHP as a GLAMP application and one as a C program, if the protocol is well-defined, the same GLAMP UI should work with both. I believe I even mentioned a web-based UI in the first email in this thread. "Matt Lee" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 03/29/10 13:50, Ted Smith wrote: > >> The contention here isn't the UI. Everyone agrees that a web UI would be >> nice, as would a desktop-based UI. People disagree on the implementation >> of the core as a GLAMP application versus a conventional daemon. But if >> we accept the duplicated effort, there's no reason not to have both. > >Not everyone can run a daemon, so we have to go with the best thing for >everyone. > -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9. Please excuse lack of OpenPGP signature and brevity.
