Sorry that it all ran together, the cut an paste for the job description didn't translate well.
As far as ACS 4.2 vs OpenAcs 4x Alpha. The mere fact that it's still "Alpha" makes me squeamish about even considering it in a production environment, when the company, and certainly my job ride on a successful implementation. Now, if it's only Alpha in name, but actually more stable, and has a better install base, that could be a different story.
All the more reason to hire someone who knows the entire range of ACS/OpenACS products. I've only 4 months of R&D, and some light usage thus far, that, an expert, does not make.
I've recived a decent amount of candidates, and am encouraged by the caliber of the applicants.
We're still months away from launch, so a decision between ACS4.2/Openacs4.x can still be adjusted. I've just gone with what I view as a more established version right now, knowing full well it's not a product that will evolve, but that appears to be ok, because it already has all the functionality we need for quite some time.
This is not how I prefer to make such decisions, I prefer a platform that will be productive for many years, but current circumstances dictate higher priority to resolve this as quickly as possible (I'm owrried our current system might now stay up until March due to serious data integrity flaws).
Again, I'm open to the possibility of OpenACS, but just nervous using something marked as "alpha" in production.
Comments?
Thanks,
