Comments on: open argument 101

By: Tux

Tux — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:30:54 +0000

I think the bulb has blown in the ‘lighthouse’..

By: Jenna

Jenna — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:15:00 +0000

I uncritically me too this entire post.

By: Martha Hardy

Martha Hardy — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:14 +0000

In my information literacy classes, I teach my students to critically evaluate sources and ask them to look for biased, misleading language, to notice whether authors cite their sources, and to look for commercial bias. I fear Mr. Abram’s report would not stand up well to such scrutiny. I find the tone of the original position paper patronizing and dismissive of librarians who seriously consider adopting open source ILS’s. He makes many claims regarding open source ILS’s without citing any sources. Finally, it goes without saying that open source ILS’s potentially threaten SirsiDynix’s market share should they become widely adopted.

Our library consortium (PALS) is seriously looking at open source ILS’s and will likely run a pilot in the next year or two. As a consortium, we enjoy an economy of effort because we have folks at PALS who possess the necessary expertise to develop the functionality we need from open source products. Given the success of our recently implemented VuFind OPAC, I am confident in the ability of the consortium to develop a robust, functional open source ILS which serves the needs of my library and other libraries across the state.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:51:52 +0000

Got to be honest here — on my first reading of the leaked PDF, it was pretty clear and obvious that Abram was implying that libraries who had moved to open source were “stupid”. In particular, I still find the decision to include an uncited and (as yet, still) unverified quote from Cliff Lynch bizarre at best.

It do think it would be stupid not to have expected a strong and vocal reaction to the publication of the document, but, like Rochelle, I’ve seen no evidence of trash-talk, name calling, or abuse directed at Abram’s family.

By: Stephen Abram

Stephen Abram — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:43:44 +0000

HiLaura:

I regret that you feel I am suggesting that people who choose open source are “stupid”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do think that folks should look at both sides of the ILS decision and make their decision with the full information. Also much in open source software is the right choice.

I also agree that open source ILS’s are worthy of development and provide a competitive push to everyone. That said, it doesn’t mean that they are the right solution at this time for every library or that all of my points matter in every library.

Also, I have a fairly thick hide so I’m not particularly “hurt”. I do see nearly all of the comments and conversations and most are sharing good information. As someone who cares about the profession at large, I do regret that some of our colleagues leave a permanent digital trail of trash talk, swearing and name calling instead of contributing to the discussion with their thoughts. Many voices in our profession have been driven out by this kind of behaviour, classify it as you will. Debating using unprofessional and bad behaviour is not good and productive. If you don’t like what I wrote, submit another opinion and join the conversation Cluetrain style. Maybe the events this week can have a positive impact on all conversations on issues of importance to librarianship.

Stephen

By: Rochelle

Rochelle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:35:48 +0000

Applause, applause!

I was actually quite impressed by the complete absence of name-calling in the white paper situation (well, absence as far as I’ve seen).

I was a bit confused about Library 101. That’s what we call the part of our website that introduces students to how to use the library. I was sort of hoping it might be something I could put on that part of our site, which desperately needs attention.

So I don’t really get why it’s called Library 101. But I love the enthusiasm in it.