Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: ".LRN Technology Choices Explained" -- feedback requested on this draft

I think some context here might help.  This article was written in response to a request from a community member who runs IT for a large institution.  I was trying to help him respond to a review of .LRN's architecture that was prepared by people who were evaluating this community member's application for a sizable grant.

The review of .LRN's architecture criticized .LRN for using AOLServer instead of Apache, and for using Tcl instead of PHP, among other things.  So the defensive tone directly reflects the need of this document to address the "why not LAMP?" question.  Ignoring the critique was not an option in this case.

I think some may have mis-interpreted what I tried to convey about AOLServer vs. Apache (so the fault is mine and I need to be more clear).  The point I'm making is that to say that Apache's worldwide share of the web server market is 63% while AOLServer's is much smaller is a misleading comparison.  Many more people drive cars than heavy-duty trucks.  A more appropriate comparison is the number of "Apache-brand" heavy-duty trucks versus "AOLServer-brand" trucks, based on each's associated capabilities and operators.  It's not to say that AOLServer/Tcl is superior across the board to Apache/PHP for high-end applications.  It *is* to say that AOLServer compares more favorably than the superficial market share statistics suggest, as reasoned in the article.

With this post I invite the community member mentioned above to share the critique if appropriate.  I also encourage the community to help him more effectively than I have.  My request for feedback, in the form of alternative text that improves on what I have posted here, remains open --  in the spirit of a "non-technical" person who posts here to learn and improve his work with the help of more "technical" people.

Who did this "architectural review" of dotLRN? If he more or less baldly said, "Using Tcl is bad, use PHP instead.", then he clearly isn't competent to review anything - but perhaps that was not the gist of his actual review.