Hacker News Reader

Comment by rquantz | Hacker News Reader

Because almost all web hosts have php and mysql already installed. They would not necessarily be my first choice for any application, but for a widely disseminated CMS, I still think those are the best choices. I'm open to being shown I'm wrong, though.

View on HN

True, but it's not hard to roll an entire self-contained bundle for which you can find a host.

Back in the 1990s, LAMP was the most widely available stack and finding reliable alternatives for which you had enough information to make an informed decision was hard. However, we are now far beyond that monoculture and there is enough information asymmetry that you don't need to choose a stack based soley on what is common and available. There is enough variety out there and the tools for deploying without having to rely on your hosting company's stack are good enough that we can have something besides LAMP become popular enough for hosting businesses and OS creators decide to include the the necessary dependencies as default.

There's a NoSql db on every host as well, the filesystem, and it works great for documented oriented sites like blogs.

Yeah, but doesn't the default number of open file descriptors limit how scalable such a solution is as a default to rely on?

Only if your number of pages exceeds the limit (assuming that you're serializing access to the files) ;)

I highly doubt that's an issue you'll ever run into on a blog.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com