Timeline for Why was this XAMPP question closed and why are so many XAMPP questions being closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Dec 29, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | martin's | Who the heck is talking about using them for production. My question and a myriad of other questions on the subject have nothing whatsoever to do with using them on production. Is SF ONLY about software used on live production systems? If so, update the FAQ. That would pretty much define it, wouldn't it? Until then you can't exclude *AMPP juse 'cause in the elite world of live production server folk it is considered trash. It is a legitimate question about using a server tool (Apache) in the context of a professional networked environment. Anyhow, I'm done. I have work to do. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 20:42 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - in a way, yes, it is about what SF likes, in that we have a strong like of doing things the right way (where right includes things like security, patching, maintainability, traceability, etc.). One-click LAMP installers are surely nice as a developer's tool (which is their stated goal), but using them in production is most definitely not the right way to do things. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 20:22 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | @martin's: Again, it's not really what the moderators 'like' it's what the community decides meta.serverfault.com/questions/2809/voting-on-the-faq-rewrite meta.serverfault.com/questions/2831/faq-rewrite-edit-round-1 meta.serverfault.com/questions/2894/… meta.serverfault.com/questions/2945/faq-rewrite-round-3 - community rules. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 19:16 | comment | added | martin's | Just picked up another nuance: "our collective dislike of *AMP installers". So, SF is about what you like? If people use tools you don't like professionally these tools don't belong in SF? Please update the FAQ to reflect that as well. SF questions have to be about tools the moderators like. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 19:13 | comment | added | martin's | I strongly disagree with you. This is your chosen interpretation of "in a professional capacity". There's a vast stretch between those words and "In production, supporting the service's normal production workload." If you want SF to be about that, please lobby for a change in the FAQ. Until then, you don't get to substitute your sense of reality for what you imagine the FAQ needs to say. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:10 | history | edited | sysadmin1138Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Add development explanation of scope.
|
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:05 | history | answered | sysadmin1138Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |