[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is LSMB really suitable for the public?

>> That's probably what I would do one day when I feel SMB is more suitable
>> to my business than SL.
> Lets explore those reasons that are holding you back then?  Are they...

My dad taught me if it ain't broken don't touch it and if it is then get
the duct tape out. Well, putting the joke aside SL has servered us well
and the security issue was not really a big concern as our system is
behind a firewall and it communitcates with remote locations via VPN.
Plus, internally, we don't have employees that would be savvy enough to
tinker with SL and we add deterrence by educating everyone that the system
is closely monitored and audited (learned this one from Regan's Star War
and consulting at global law firms--don't mess around or I'll point the
killer laser at you that I don't have and, yes, if you tinker with my very
vulnerable multi-million dollars financial system then I will throw my
thousands of lawyers at you to have you put away forever).

Also, SL has been around longer and it is proven (so to speak and probably
on the comfort level only) and LS really hasn't been around for that long;
given LS's aggressive, for lack of better word, promise (security and
database and codes rewrite) these have all lead me to put the migration on
hold. The only thing that I really like about LS at this time is it is
community driven with core developers; however, I ponder the question on
why it is limiting its backend to Postgres (other then being good for
Postgres) and deem the necesary to put all the logics and constraints in
the backend (it is a shame that I was taught all these relational database
theories and design cycles and later on in life had to work with expensive
financial system that uses flat tables). To me, a medium business could
easily be 10-20 millions per year and it may just not want to use
Postgres. Further, how about the vision that the SMB one day will become
SMVLB (very large)?