On 6 December 2014 6:19:53 am NZDT, Greg Barniskis <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi all, > >As others pointed out, LLK and Koha are not the same. They were once >upon a time, but speaking as someone whose employer (SCLS) chose LLK >but who also watches the Koha community with great interest, I can >confirm the products are divergent, and increasingly so. > >Some key differences that are of note (and I'm sure there are others): > >LLK is, technically, open source, but not nearly as open as Koha. Too >many differences to get into in any great detail here, but in summary: >very different. You can download it and use it, but you won't find many >others who are hosting it and thus able to help in that area; your >realistic choices for support are be a LibLime customer or Do It >Yourself. Compare community, where one can download, bootstrap and get >good help doing it. > >LLK scales very high. SCLS pushes on average over one million checkouts >per month, pitting nearly 500,000 patrons against 900,000 bibs and 3.4 >million items. I believe that Koha can scale too, but so far as I know >it really has not been battle-tested to the same degree. If/when it is, >there may be some hurdles to clear (there definitely were for LLK when >we started stomping on it). >
It has, there are 1000+ public libraries in Argentina using Koha in a union Catalogue. PTFS Europe have a 47 library customer with 700,000 patrons. There are a few other examples, but I just wanted to squash the idea Koha is unproven at scale. I pretty much agree with the rest of the email. Chris >LLK uses Solr to meet our demanding search requirements. Koha started >down that path but (if I understand correctly) is now heading toward >other solutions. > >LLK fines and fees handling is now very different from Koha. >Acquisitions too, I think, though I pay hardly any attention in that >area... > >LLK is said to be slated to merge functionality with another fork, LL >Academic Koha, creating a new super fork (a spork? =). This is probably >going to be good for most LibLime customers, I think, but after that >point I think comparing the resulting product to Koha is really going >to be quite a stretch of the imagination. > >Koha has a well-maintained manual, wiki, db schema map and other >reference materials. While these were once also pretty valid sources of >info for LLK, the fork divergence is continually eroding that value. It >is not safe to read something in community resources and conclude that >what you find there is also true for LLK. You can test, and you can >validate in many cases that things are still similar if not identical >under the hood, but you cannot just assume that they are comparable >because in some cases they are not. For me, the fact that LLK lacks >these documentation and info sharing resources is a real downside. On >the upside, when we go to LL staff to get info, they do know or will >find the answer, but IMO it would be better if the same scope and >quality of reference material were there as exists for Koha. This is >definitely a strike against the idea that you can just download LLK and >Do It Yourself. > > >---- >Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator >South Central Library System (SCLS) ><gbarniskis at scls.info>, (608) 242-4716 > >_______________________________________________ >Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org >[email protected] >http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org [email protected] http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
