CCK is not tested in critical environments, Umm. the difference is that flexinode is _known_ to not work in critical environments.
An attempt to cull a potential flame. Flexinode doesn't scale well. Due to it's exprimental design it has loads of performance issues, so I wouldn't recomend it for critical environments [1]. It is a workable solution for sites with modest traffic. It does offer functionality not yet available in cck, mainly, I suppose, due to time constraints, or natural unwillingness to commit to a particular implementation: what approach to use for file fields? (to mention one from the top of my head) By design, CCK scales better, provides better fundamentals, is a better long-term choice. Practicaly CCK is flexinode 2.0, so like all decent 2.0 releases it is still in beta. Having said that, I agree that 1.0 & 2.0 are going to coexist for some time. I suppose the fittest will survive. Both have valid applications. One is young(ish), the other one is aged. Please don't argue on the merrits of either - they are obvious, as the disadvantages of both. ------------------------------------------------- [1] critical environment depends on your definition of one, but for me the requerements for the software are circling around: * security * scalability - both how many websites can co-exist and how flexible it is. * stability under load ( intentionally ripped off from above) * performance - related to the above Flexinode has issues with most of the above. I'm using it on minor card sized websites, or applications - because iit is flexible. Nothing challenging.