[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] SPAM Re: SPAM Re: SPAM Re: SPAM Re: Library Journal

Fri Nov 6 13:13:57 EST 2009

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Lori Ayre <loriayre at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sharon,
>
> I think we might still be missing an open source resource sharing product
> too (although Relais was promising one for awhile).  I just want to make
> sure we keep that on our wish list.  ;)

I wrote a bit about this before[1], and Equinox is actively seeking
senior Perl and C developers to make it happen.  If you, or folks you
know, would like to be involved in the design and development of an
Open Source ILL-focused resource sharing product, run, don't walk to
your email client and let us know via careers at esilibrary.com!

</shameless-plug>

[1] http://blog.esilibrary.com/2008/03/13/the-path-to-fulfillment/

--miker

>
> Or should I say...put it on our development schedule!
>
> Lori
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Sharon Foster <fostersm1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I just want to chime in that I disagree with those who say we should
>> not choose between proprietary and open source based solely on
>> philosophical grounds. Even if everything that Abrams says about OSLS
>> were true--and of course it's not--it's still no worse than
>> proprietary software on every point; I don't think he really made his
>> case that proprietary is "better." So why not decide on philosophical
>> grounds? Why is our profession, which is all about sharing resources
>> and ideas, even having this debate?
>>
>> And after we've settled this issue, can we go on to talk about an open
>> source solution for public computers (and staff computers, why not?)
>> that includes time and print management--the only two pieces of the
>> puzzle that are really missing?
>>
>> Sharon M. Foster, JD, MLS
>> Technology Librarian
>> http://firstgentrekkie.blogspot.com/
>> "Have you tried switching it off and on again?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Cynthia Williamson
>> <crwbookgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Abram is indeed a salesman and I agree with the apologist label that
>> > someone
>> > else applied.  My first instinct was to ignore his document but
>> > considering
>> > that I could whip up this rebuttal in about 15 minutes, I can't resist
>> > sharing. I was just finishing this up when Frances sent the itwire
>> > rebuttal,
>> > I love that the non-library community is calling Abram on his
>> > dis-information campaign, thanks for sharing.  I almost didn't post
>> > this,
>> > but like I said, I can't resist.
>> > Please edit and add to it if ya like - we can create our own "Open
>> > Source
>> > for Libraries" document that is much more useful to libraries seeking a
>> > new
>> > ILS solution.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Cynthia
>> > Mohawk College
>> > Hamilon ON
>> >
>> > TCO:  We handled our own migration to EG, a possibility that Abram
>> > doesn't
>> > address. Our hardware costs were under $10,000CAD.  We migrated early in
>> > the
>> > last year of our support contract with our proprietary system -
>> > essentially
>> > having access to both systems for about 7 months.  We could never have
>> > afforded to do that if we'd been migrating to a new proprietary system.
>> > Has
>> > it cost us in time?  Of course it has, but I once spent the better part
>> > of a
>> > year on a DRA to Dynix migration (not to mention the year before that
>> > dealing with the whole RFP & decision making process) AND we spent @
>> > CAD$180,000.00 on hardware, software and training - that was many years
>> > ago
>> > and in a pretty small library system - I'd hate to think what a
>> > migration to
>> > an SD system would cost today. But of course I wouldn't know would I?
>> > Those
>> > companies ask us to sign confidentiality documents around quotes.  We do
>> > have a develpment contract for some work from Equinox and no one has
>> > asked
>> > us to sign any confidientiality documents around the work or the quote.
>> > The
>> > time investment in learning about Dynix hasn't helped me much with other
>> > systems - none of their standards or software are the same as anything
>> > else
>> > I've encountered. The time invested in learning about and implementing
>> > EG
>> > has given me sustainable, transferable knowlege that will help me and
>> > the
>> > institution I work for well into the future.   Oh and yes indeedy it is
>> > free
>> > like in kittens not beer but kittens last a lot longer than beer, much
>> > as I
>> > enjoy a good beer, kittens are a way better ROI, don't ya think?  Last
>> > on
>> > this point -  let's not forget about paying for own data when we migrate
>> > from one system to another - we won't have to do that if we ever migrate
>> > from EG.
>> >
>> > Opportunity Costs:  "Some software isn't compatible with open source".
>> > Is
>> > he kidding?  Like any proprietary system is compatable with all
>> > software!!!
>> > We had to pay for extra programming to make sure our former mythical
>> > beast
>> > of an ILS was searchable in the federated search product that we chose.
>> >
>> > SaaS - FUD, total FUD mongering.  I have no comment.
>> >
>> > Features and Functions:  I'll admit that the EG cataloguing module isn't
>> > the
>> > most user friendly thing I've ever used but since 90% of our cataloguing
>> > is
>> > done by a vendor, it's not a great issue for us. We migrated from a
>> > pretty
>> > old SD OPAC so for us the EG OPAC is more feature rich but I get that
>> > there
>> > more bells and whistles in other SD products than the one we used.
>> > As for SD being the most robust and feature rich system on the market???
>> > Why
>> > did Georgia decide to build their own ILS?  Why is Queens PL suing SD
>> > over
>> > what are essentially broken promises???
>> >
>> > Customization: "Probably the most attractive claim by the open source
>> > community is its ability to be customized by anyone, for anyone. This
>> > claim
>> > is technically true."  I almost want to say 'nuff said.  But I can't
>> > help
>> > remembering being sold on being able to do minor customizations to
>> > Horizon,
>> > only to find that stuff we did would be undone by minor upgrades.  At
>> > least
>> > in EG we can track our own tweaks and just re-do them after an upgrade
>> > if
>> > need be and we'll know what tweaks won't go with an upgrade, instead of
>> > getting suprises because we made the tweaks and we can see the code.
>> >
>> > Security: I think this is just more FUD.  Others more qualified than me
>> > should address this if possible.  update based on itwire post:  the US
>> > DoD
>> > is embracing open source - think they'd do it if was generally not
>> > secure???
>> >
>> > Networking:  Doesn't relying on more open standards stand us in better
>> > stead?  Keeping up with changes to browsers and operating systems is
>> > difficult for all of us, proprietary or open source.
>> >
>> > Necessary Expertise:  I am aware of the budget cuts to libraries over
>> > the
>> > decades that caused us to lose systems and other positions over the
>> > years.
>> > So I lay no blame for giving up a lot of power over our own destinies.
>> > But
>> > this loss has caused us to rely much too heavily on proprietary vendors
>> > methinks. I think that building the "necessary expertise" is crucial to
>> > the
>> > future of libraries. We are the organizing experts, as more and more
>> > digital
>> > repositories are created, more open publishing at our institutions
>> > happens,
>> > we need to be the ones who help with organizing and access to this
>> > stuff.
>> > In many ways I agree with Clifford Lynch when he wonders about the cost
>> > and
>> > time and effort being spent to create something that essentially already
>> > exists.  But this is a case of going back to school, learning about our
>> > principles and standards either again or for the very first time -
>> > taking
>> > back ownership of our own systems is a very good thing.  If it feels
>> > like a
>> > step backwards to some, so be it, eventually it will lead to huge steps
>> > forward.
>> >
>> > Testing:  I've said this once and I'll say it again, is he kidding??
>> > Those
>> > big proprietary systems are impossible to test thoroughly,  there is no
>> > one
>> > who is familiar with the entire history of their development. I remember
>> > a
>> > Horizon support guy telling me they'd never be able to release a new
>> > feature
>> > if they had to be completely & totally sure that it wouldn't break
>> > anything.  We're all familiar with waiting for others to apply patches
>> > and
>> > do upgrades first to avoid that early adopter disaster.  This is
>> > actually
>> > the way of a lot of software isn't it? Early adopters do take their
>> > chances.
>> > At least right now, the EG and KOHA developers are all pretty intimately
>> > familiar with their systems and if they don't catch "breaks" that will
>> > be
>> > caused by an upgrade before they happen, they'll often be able to get to
>> > the
>> > source and fix it with a really good patch, not a quick fix that causes
>> > other problems, etc. etc. etc.
>> >
>> > Integration:  Mostly agree with what he says here, but would add that
>> > with
>> > Open Source you're more likely to be able to understand compatability
>> > issues
>> > 'cause you can see the code!!
>> >
>> > Community Driven:  I suppose I can concede that there is a big, mostly
>> > thriving Sirsi Dynix community but has anyone ever rec'd a reply to a
>> > query
>> > or problem almost instantly from SD developers???
>> >
>> > Scalability:  I think he goes into territory he doesn't know much about
>> > here. Remember that Georgia didn't have enough confidence in any of the
>> > proprieatry systems in that department. Yes EG was developed for a
>> > specific
>> > consortium but Conifer and BC Sitka and others exist so the specifics
>> > for
>> > Georgia haven't made it impossible for other consortiums to use EG.
>> >
>> > Speed:  This is such a red herring.  So many things can cause speed
>> > issues
>> > it is almost impossible to decide that one system is faster than
>> > another.
>> > Our EG system is totally zippy - but I know better than to say that is
>> > way
>> > faster than the mythical beast that we left because we were part of a
>> > consortium using a pretty old version of the OPAC - apples to oranges.
>> >
>> > Reliability:  I truly don't know how he has the nerve to discuss
>> > reliability.  Think of what SD did to their Horizon customers. I still
>> > struggle to contain my outrage about that and my library wasn't directly
>> > affected!!  That DRA to Dynix migration I participated in?  Forced, by
>> > the
>> > end of the life of DRA.  No software is totally reliable ... at least if
>> > the
>> > EG community dies or forks irrevocably, we have our data and our system
>> > and
>> > can keep it running just fine while we decide what to do next.
>> >
>> > Open Source and Libraries:  More FUD.  Lynch has already clarified what
>> > he
>> > was saying.  Libraries need to explore open source and proprietary
>> > solutions
>> > and based on their needs, I don't think it is a matter of open source
>> > all
>> > the time but I gotta admit, we look for those first.
>> >
>> > SD on Open Source:  Who cares?? - just like I wouldn't listen to the
>> > tobacco
>> > industry about smoking I'm not going to take advice on open source from
>> > a
>> > company who stands to gain by turning libraries away from open source
>> > solutions.
>> >
>> > Caveat emptor indeed!  I totally agree with him on that one and it is
>> > why I
>> > would not go near SD with a ten foot pole, given a choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Deanna Frazee <dfrazee at ci.killeen.tx.us>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm hoping this might help the library industry quit touting Abrams as
>> >> a
>> >> visionary among librarians.  He's a degreed librarian, but he's been a
>> >> corporate guy for so long that I have my doubts that he is all that in
>> >> touch
>> >> with the realities of working in a library now.
>> >>
>> >> Visionary? No.  More like salesperson.
>> >>
>> >> Deanna Frazee
>> >> Killeen City Library System
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >>
>> >> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org on behalf of
>> >> Schultz, Monica
>> >> Sent: Thu 11/5/2009 7:27 PM
>> >> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
>> >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Library Journal
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Plus is great marketing for OSS, you know what they say "there is no
>> >> bad
>> >> marketing" lol...
>> >>
>> >> Monica M. Schultz
>> >> PLS IT Director
>> >> Tel: 650.356-2120
>> >> Fax: 650.349.5089
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
>> >> [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf
>> >> Of
>> >> Mark Jordan
>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:29 PM
>> >> To: open-ils-general at list.georgialibraries.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Library Journal
>> >>
>> >> C'mon guys, I think spreading FUD is a perfectly natural response from
>> >> a
>> >> company that has lost customers to OSS ILSs.
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> Mark Jordan
>> >> Head of Library Systems
>> >> W.A.C. Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University
>> >> Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
>> >> Voice: 778.782.5753 / Fax: 778.782.3023
>> >> mjordan at sfu.ca
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it
>> > would be
>> > a merrier world.
>> > J. R. R. Tolkien
>> >
>
>

-- 
Mike Rylander
 | VP, Research and Design
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com

[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Library Journal

[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] SPAM Re: SPAM Re: SPAM Re: SPAM Re: Library Journal