This afternoon, rather quietly, I posted the first release candidate for Evergreen 1.2.0 on the Open-ILS.org download page. This is a big milestone for the project and for the developers. It’s also a big milestone for those interested in adopting Evergreen outside of PINES. The 1.0 series was pretty heavily skinned for PINES, with the images, rules, and default configuration, and new backend features were slow to be incorporated due to the pain of updating the database schema. The shiny new 1.2 series removes almost all traces of PINES-specific images and default rules, and contains many new backend improvements. It is also the first non-experimental release to include a significant amount of code not created directly by GPLS and PINES.
ALA Presentation Pics and Slides
The Evergreen presentation at ALA was a huge success… a little too successful, in fact. Many folks had to be turned away after the room filled completely up. Here are some pictures of the event, courtesy Lamar Veatch, Georgia State Librarian:
Also, here are the slides from the presentation.
ALA; Myths on the Cost of Open Source; Sharing in Positivity
I went to a discussion panel at ALA where a couple of library luminaries shared their views on library innovation. It was a good discussion all around and there were some great questions and comments from the audience. One recurring theme was the “reinforcement of the negative” that pervades the library landscape. For example, harping on how poorly some librarians are paid, how this or that branch closed down, or how people will rain down fire on organizations that try something new. The idea, basically, is that if we focus on the positive and shed our “culture of victimization” we’ll all have a more productive future moving forward. I couldn’t agree more.
At some point in the discussion, an audience member asked the panel to share their views on the effects of open source on library innovation. The panel members were all quick to say “well, yeah, obviously open source helps drive innovation.” Here’s the rub, though. One of the panel members works for a proprietary software vendor and you can guess he wasn’t going to let the conversation stop there. He started mumbling something about the total cost of ownership and how you have to hire real, hard-core developers to administer and maintain open source software. Obviously, we know where his bread is buttered and I expected no less, but I would like the opportunity for a rebuttal.
I would call the vendor’s response a good example of defeatism, exactly what the panel, and this person in particular, was railing at. Again, no real surprises, I’m just amused by public nuggets of hypocrisy. Additionally, I can provide mathematical proof that open source software with a vendor community is in fact better than proprietary software:
- Assume your open source software is proprietary software and hire a vendor to install and maintain it.
- We have thus proven that open source software is at least as sustainable an option as proprietary software
- Now add the OPTION of accessing and understanding the code, contributing to the code, contributing to feature discussions, etc.
- Having options is better than not having options. QED.
Oh, and no software licensing fees, having the option of changing support vendors mid-stream, getting support from public forums, blah, blah, blah…
-bill