Transcript Open Source Software - Connecticut Library Association

Open Source Software &
Libraries
A Look at OSS in 2014
Software development models
1. Closed source/proprietary/vendor-created (you cannot
view/troubleshoot/edit the code)
2. Free/Open source, community-created (you can
view/troubleshoot/edit the code, contribute your fixes back to the
community)
3. Custom, in-house developed, proprietary (the in-house team can
view/troubleshoot/edit the code)
OSS / FOSS
• Open source software is software that can be freely used, changed,
and shared (in modified or unmodified form) by anyone.
Open-source software is developed in a public, collaborative manner.
• “Free software” offers 4 freedoms re: code (use, copy, modify,
contribute to)
• No licensing fees for use of free/open-source software
Who does what?
Proprietary
Open Source
Custom, in-house
Core codebase
Vendor ($)
Community ($0)
Self
Optional/add-on Features
Vendor ($)
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”)
Self,
3rd-party ($)
Documentation
Vendor ($),
3rd party ($)
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”),
(or some combination)
Self
Support
Vendor ($),
3rd party ($)
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”),
(or some combination)
Self
Training (inc. user group
meetings)
Vendor ($),
3rd party ($),
Community
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”),
(or some combination)
Self
Implementation/project mgt
Vendor ($),
3rd party ($)
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”),
(or some combination)
Self
Migration (out)
Vendor ($),
3rd party ($)
Community ($0),
3rd party ($),
Self (“sweat equity”),
(or some combination)
Self
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD)
Loses to Real-World Experience
• Marketing technique designed to counter the threat
of F/OSS, used by closed-source software vendors
FUD Myths
Proven experience
Proprietary/closed source
software is more secure
Open source, generally, is
more secure than proprietary
Proprietary/closed source
software has better code
Better quality code found in
open-source projects (Engard,
citing Noyes 12/23/12, “2011
Coverity Scan Open Source
Integrity Report: fewer
defects/1000 lines of code”)
Proprietary/closed source
software is harder to use
Open source can be easy to
use, or can be made to be
easy to use
Public Sector & F/OSS
• Governments’ commitment - 30% of US
federal agencies now use Drupal
“Increasingly, governments are wrestling with
the 'how tos' of open source choices; not
‘whether’ to use it.”
(Bohannon, 09/04/13 http://opensource.com/government/13/9/trend
s-open-source-government-2013)
OSS in Libraries
• Libraries (93% use some form of OSS (top =
Mozilla’s Firefox), Engard’s 2010 survey)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
ILS (Evergreen, Koha)
Discovery layer (VuFind, Blacklight)
Digital repository (Islandora, Hydra, DSpace)
Web server stack (Apache, Nginx, PHP, Ruby on Rails
Database Management System (Mysql, Postgresql)
Website content management (Wordpress, Drupal)
Operating Systems (Linux)
General Software Applications (OpenOffice, Firefox,
GIMP, Thunderbird, Filezilla)
OSS ILS’ in Libraries
1. ILS Market share up to 14% in 2012 (Brooke,
2013)
2. “Evergreen and Koha ILS products have become
mainstream. Both offer features comparable to
proprietary products” (Breeding, 2012)
3. Quality/satisfaction – “generally moderate to
high satisfaction scores” (Breeding & Yelton,
2011)
4. Contracts for OSS ILS vendors for
Evergreen/Koha, 14% of 794 public & academic
contracts
OSS ILS in Library Case Studies:
$ Savings + End of Vendor Lock-in
• Crowell Public Library in San Marino, CA:
– 2010, $60K/year for SirsiDynix Horizon
– Switched to a SaaS (Software as a Service) hosted v. of
LibLime Koha for $7K/year
• Koha support vendors, for example, just 1 in
2007-2008 ; up to 9 in 2010
• MassCat (on Koha since 2008) – switched easily
from LibLime to ByWater Solutions for support
without having to migrate from one system to
another (invisible to patrons)
OSS in Libraries – a “force multiplier”
• IMLS “Empowered by Open Source” grants
• King County Library System received this in
2009 for migration III to Evergreen and
development of necessary Evergreen
components
– Additional expenses in development made the tab
for the new system the same as III Millennium
– Support costs / ongoing = 70% of III Millennium
costs (Brooke, 2013: 6)
OSS, UX & Digital Literacy
1. User eXperience Design
• Closing the usability loop requires ability to fix
code
– 1st barrier = access to code
– 2nd barrier = coding know-how
2. Digital literacy
• Many possible levels of engagement
– Develop coding know-how in-house?
Panelists
• Ben Shum, Bibliomation
• Jesse Weaver, Bywater Solutions
• Dave Bretthauer, Greg Colati, and Michael
Howser, the Connecticut Digital Archive
• Sharon Clapp, Elihu Burritt Library, Central
Connecticut State University
Panel Questions:
1.
2.
Why are libraries going the way of open source catalogs?
What types of information gets lost while migrating from legacy systems to opensource?
3. What are advantages of going to an open source catalog? What types of features
do these catalogs offer that a legacy system does not?
4. How much technical knowledge should an institutions’s staff have?
5. How should libraries best interact with vendors regarding technical issues &
requesting fixes? Can the speaker give a programmer perspective on the process?
6. Explain test environments (sandboxes) and bug-reporting vs. enhancements
7. What types of things are customizable and what things are not?
8. Explain your work on discovery layers and what the future holds
9. What portion of the librarian or staff member(s) time is spent on the systems? Is
that their sole responsibility in their jobs or do they have other duties? If they do
have other duties, how much time do they spend on the system & do they think
it’s enough time?
10. What’s required for success in an OSS implementation project (vs. any other
project)?