funkstar;433408 Wrote: > I disagree. I look at it as the 90% of customers that don't need to know > what DB SS is using are better using SQLite as it will mean less support > issues as less is likely to ge wrong. > I know what you mean, and partially agree, mainly for new users. To change existing users from one to the other means they are losing their current data, and starting afresh. That means potentially losing things in their current setup (eg. statistics, ratings, other things that 3rd party plugins provide). Existing users that have a working setup have no need to change to another database.
I think the only problem with MySQL were the occasional reported issue about problems openning files due to affects of other processes running on that users computer (eg. AV and firewall products). That can happen to any app, caused by any program. i.e. who's to say it won't be a problem with SQLite too. i.e. how much testing has been conducted to see if SQLite is better? > NAS users may be considered power users at the moment, but that would > change if there was a push to recoment NAS boxes for SS in the future. > After all, there is also the -noweb switch, making SS a lot lighter and > less resource hungry. The switches to turn off functionality to lower the memory footprint only stop items from running, I believe. They are still built into the executable, so still take up memory. I'm not sure how much of a saving they really make. For NAS solutions, dedicated builds that don't include those functions would be better? -- Philip Meyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Meyer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=95 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64564 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
