I'm with dragonchild. Don't loose the distinction between toys and serious database maintenance. Toys can be very useful, to learn on, to do serious things you can afford to lose, or to demo something. Sometimes one's whole business can be supporting toy software for people who really need better. That's ok. It can be a good thing to do, but your clients need to know that what they are relying on is a toy that wasn't designed for what they are doing, so when the next funding cycle comes up they can make an informed decision on where to spend their scarce resources -- on a database setup that they can rely on, or on the good works that are the not-for-profit's primary mission. The important thing is that they know what they have signed on for, and the only way to get the point across non-technically is to call it a toy, or something equivalent but more polite. If you don't give them a name to tag the vulnerability with, they will forget about it and blame you when something fails. (OK, they may blame you anyway, but at least you tried.) Anyway, that's my two cents. We each serve where we can best do some good, if we're lucky.