This would greatly increase the number of servers out there, which would in turn greatly increase the attack vector for hacker/botnets in the case of any security hole in M/A/P.
We cannot assume that users will update their installs, so installing unnecessary servers is harkening back to the bad old days of Microsoft and the 1000s of open ports.g
I already have great trouble that the abyss web server is not recognized as a web server. When I want to install, for instance, WebSVN, I have to install either apache or lighthttpd. I don't want apache!
Please. I don't want LAMP on my file servers, virtualisation servers, mail servers. Actually I use a lot of Ubuntu on servers and PCs and not a single LAMP on them for the moment.
This is not a good idea. A year ago I'd have said "Yeah" but not now. Why force users to accept Apache when there are other alternatives ( better ones depending on your needs ) like lighttpd or, my favourite, nginx. Yes Apache is powerful but when you need raw speed you can't beat nginx or lighttpd. All my web servers are nginx, php (Fast-CGI) and MySQL, memory usage is low and speeds are high, even on the old PIII 450MHz servers running webmail. It also annoys the hell out of me that installing phpmyadmin or phpsysinfo on Ubuntu insists on dragging in Apache even when nginx is already installed and well up for the task. A much better option would be to offer the choices when installing a Web Server in "tasksel" ( Apache/lighttpd/nginx ) (perl/php/ruby/python) (MySQL/Postgres/Sqlite), with a little description beside each option outlining their benefits. Anybody installing a Web Server will know what they need. Thats the beauty of open source. Choice. You can tailor your server to meet your exact needs. If you're going to just blatently install Apache, PHP and MySQL you may as well run your server with Windows, IIS, ASP.NET and SQL Server 20005 Express and have done with it.