Author: stvrtg
Description:
WikiMedia projects don't just run on MediaWiki. They run on Linux systems, Apache servers, MySQL databases, and the PHP/Zend interpreter. And they don't ask for a dime. Putting their name on each WikiMedia page means giving them credit, and makes the common usage of free software a little less invisible.
A little Firefox plug might not be bad either, though there is a little money issue there.
-Steven
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
michael.daly wrote:
Except for the ones that run on Windows or Macs, use IIS, Postgres, etc. Just because you run LAMP doesn't mean everyone does. Should MW advertise for MS, Apple and others?
If you want to add this sort of thing to your own wiki's footer, go ahead. But why should the install figure out what every possible combination should be?
stvrtg wrote:
I was not dealing with the '*MediaWiki *can run on LAMP or BPCP or whatever' concept, rather with the '*Wikimedia *does run on LAMP' concept, and as such should give it some credit.
My suggestion is that WikiMedia give credit to the technologies that currently run WikiMedia sites. Other sites can credit whomever they choose.
Plus, a little appreciation might get some appreciation.
-Steven
The links for the infrastructure software are on [[Special:Version]] along with our own detailed credits. IMO not much point to cluttering up every page with links to commodity software that the users don't actually interact with in any way (whereas MediaWiki *is* what users are interacting with directly).
stvrtg wrote:
Well, my main concern was for Linux. Representing Linux, or the particular Linux versions we use is the main concept here. In fact [[Special:Version]] indicates Ubuntu only tangentially through the PHP 5.2.4-2ubuntu identification. In addition to not mentioning Linux, GNU or the particular distro/version, Special:Version only lists three of the main packages, omits all other packages such as Apache, Imagemagick, etc. etc., and jumps over these into Mediawiki extensions and their authors. Data is missing from Special:Version, and a little Linux icon on each wouldn't cause any "clutter."
Your characterizations 1) "commodity software" and 2) "that the users don't actually interact with in any way (whereas MediaWiki *is* what users are interacting with directly)" - are quite beside the point, and anyway easily takeapartable.
-Steven
(In reply to comment #4)
Well, my main concern was for Linux. Representing Linux, or the particular
Linux versions we use is the main concept here. In fact [[Special:Version]]
indicates Ubuntu only tangentially through the PHP 5.2.4-2ubuntu
identification. In addition to not mentioning Linux, GNU or the particular
distro/version, Special:Version only lists three of the main packages, omits
all other packages such as Apache, Imagemagick, etc. etc., and jumps over these
into Mediawiki extensions and their authors. Data is missing from
Special:Version, and a little Linux icon on each wouldn't cause any "clutter."
See bug 14611.