WebJunction

WIBS is coming along on its own steam, but one thing that makes it hard to justify resources here is that it works quite well for us. We have lots of systems (that we typically pay for) which need generous attention, so sometimes WIBS gets bumped down the priority list. There are also lots of things that I learned along the way that I just didn't see going into WIBS that I now want to change. One is authentication, I did a workaround for libraries which didn't have access to the 3M/NCIP option on their system, or just couldn't afford it, but this layer is done in a much more accessible option in the next release. I also hadn't seen another PC reservation system when WIBS was created, so some things that probably should have been obvious completely eluded me. I made the huge mistake early on in writing a windows security layer, we realized this wouldn't work on the public library's thin clients anyway so didn't use it, but that was a portion of my life that probably could have been better spent in other activities.

That being said, it might be nice to have some entity to approach for getting something like a letter of endorsement for saying this application is a "good thing to support". My resource shortage, and I am sure this happens to a lot of OSS developers, is in terms of time. I love development and have been involved in it for almost two decades, but most libraries are a long way from what would be considered a full software development environment. This is NOT a bad thing, I have spent some months in a total software development organization and it is so removed from an application's actual use that it drains a lot of the flexibility and fun out of the process. But I think all of us are not short of tasks that we are responsible for. Development is a joy, but in libraries, it often needs to be juggled with activities like fixing label printers and lots of other highbrow pursuits.

Libraries are a bit like social laboratories for civic computing, I think a lot of our systems strain to be flexible on the ground because we have such diverse intersections of users and computing tasks. Anytime I talk to someone who maintains thousands of lines of code for one application that they rarely see the benefit for, I always thank the higher powers that I work in a library. So I wouldn't go as far as to say we need an infrastructure that takes staff out of the stream of what libraries do, because I think the organic origins of something like MyLibrary or koha give them a credibility that doesn't exist when an application emerges fully-formed from a back-room development shop. I guess I end up back at Apache again, I believe most people who participate on Apache projects do so with partial release time. It's a bit like the World Wide Web consortium where working groups need some strong commitments from their organizations to participate. How do we get these kinds of commitments? Is there a role for the library associations or foundations here?

Going back to Josh's question, which may prepare us for the installation workshop on Friday...

There are a few things that MSFT Office does that really bug me:

1. Outlook Crashes and is slow when on the exchange server.

2. Can't create contact cards for folks you've *sent* messages to in Outlook.

3. Can't use the thesaurus with Outlook's text editor (at least I don't think you can...)

Honestly, when I encounter these problems, I think 'hopefully they'll fix it with the next version.' It's exciting to think I could actually have more an effect on the software I use.

I'm getting the sense that OSS folks are really passionate about what they do and the fact that it's all community driven. Do you think that could be intimidating to some people? I admit that on Monday I felt a little like there was this 'OSS club' that I wasn't a part of.

Again, hearing from those who are not yet 'in the OSS club' would be nice. Are there any questions you've been afraid to ask thus far?

Please ... ask away!

Great comments Art! I have a few questions for everyone. I will assume that for most folks in library science, open source software is appealing primarily because it means that software can be free (as in free beer); but free/open source advocates often focus on a more basic freedom: control over how the software works. I believe that understanding the implications of that freedom is essential when we are considering whether we ?should or shouldn't? use free/open source software. For those of you who currently use proprietary software: have your needs been met? Do you have ideas for how software that you use could be improved? How about free/open source software users: have you experienced the freedom described by open source advocates? Do you have control over software functionality?

Open source software relies very much on community, as Art points out.

Open source software uses a sort of peer-review process to evaluate applications. The usefulness of applications is not determined by the number of dollars vendos spend on marketing.

If we, as a community, were to pool our resources to build applications we desired, then there would be great savings of dollars and euros all over the world.

I can't speak for other organizations, but I have certainly heard some of the concerns in connection to [url http://wibs.sourceforge.net ]WIBS[/url]. Some libraries are mandated to have support contracts and/or other kinds of agreements that are difficult to supply in a small OSS project. I have been working for the past few months to totally revamp WIBS and I am excited about the results, but I have to deal with the issues surrounding changing the code base. WIBS has a small enough installation ring that I think I can handle that easily enough, but for a bigger OSS project, this could be a real problem.

It goes back to that developer's itch that Raymond talks about, I have enough interest in the application to pursue augmenting it in my own time, but since it is my own time, I may want a lot of autonomy in what I identify as priorities. Now the ideal case is where a site uses the availability of the code to create what they want, but some sites really do want free software, and software that they don't have to tweak. I am sympathetic to this (though maybe not completely supportive with my actions).

For various reasons, some libraries are going to want an off-the-shelf solution and some legal language to go with it. These things can be delivered in an OSS environment but it takes a critical mass to get to this point. There is also some funny math involved. WIBS saved us significant savings last year, but there doesn't seem to be a way in our organization to translate that to support for enhancing the application. In other words, savings achieved from OSS often don't get redirected back to OSS activities. Again, like Eric, I go back to the community connection, small communities are much more dependent on frequent participation from the constituents than larger ones. I think the argument to support OSS because it is a "good thing" has a lot of merit, but I suspect we need something like the Apache foundation for widespread adoption.

For those of you who don't know how the Apache foundation works, they have a process whereby applications are evaluated and supported based on both technical merit and the perceived benefit of the systems. Apache applications tend to be of very high quality because they work hard on the front end. I still totally believe in systems like SourceForge for incubating OSS projects, but it would help everyone to have an equivalent to something like Apache in the library world. On the other hand, Apache's roster includes organizations like IBM, I don't know if we have enough deep pockets out there to create this kind of entity on our own.

I like OSS because it give me the freedom to tinker and to customize the software to my workflow. I also like to know what my software is doing. I had a incident where I was working with security templates and rendered my computer useless. I could not find out what exactly these templates turned on or off because that information was not published.

I was frustrated by not having control of my computer and software. Open source gives me that control because even if I can not read the source code for many apps, I can hire someone who can.

Another reason why I like open source is that you do not get left out in the cold when the software company get bought or decides to end support for a application. As long as you have the source code and have someone who can code that software will always work for you.