[WEB4LIB] Re: The beginning of the end for the Netscape Browser???

[Dan Lester]

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 5:16:38 PM, you wrote:
>> I'm not interested in engaging in any browser, OS, or platform
>> warfare.  My point is simply that many organizations, whether profit
>> or nonprofit, want a commercial product that has support.

RLGI> The implicit assumptions here are 1) that commercial products are
RLGI> supported, and 2) that free ones are not.

The explicit fact is that on our campus MS Win9x/2K are supported, as
are MSOffice 9x/2k.  Linux is not supported.  Some folks use it, of
course, typically grad students and faculty in some of the sciences
and in engineering.  However, those people must still have a method of
getting all of their official campus email (and a great many important
things are sent email only) into their Linux box or U**x box from the
Win/Mac email system.  One of their options is to use the web version
of the email system; another is to logon to their email account on
some Win/Mac computer and set up autoforwarding to their other
address.

RLGI> For example, at one place where I've worked the computing infra-
RLGI> structure was hopeless divided between what I called the "old hippie
RLGI> mainframers" and the "Unix cowboys".

Sure, BTDT.  A former (thru ca. 95) IT Director had a sign on his desk
saying "VM Bigot".

RLGI> Microsoft is for them what IBM
RLGI> was in the 80s.  Microsoft is big, indifferent to standards, hos-
RLGI> tile to open-source software (for obvious business reasons), and
RLGI> it's obviously not going away any time soon.

Actually, that isn't the case here.  We first went with AT&T StarLan
(talk about a loser), now Novell.  We still use the abominable Novell
Groupwise (referred to above).  We were WordPerfect for a long time,
longer than many thought we should have been.  Finally, the economic
realities took over: every new PC came with MSOffice already on it,
plus it was clear that WP was no longer a serious player after they
were dumped twice.  (I go back to WP2.1, as well as Mosaic and NS
0.7x, but sometimes you just have to go with the way things are, not
the way you wish they were)

RLGI> There's no reasoning with people like this because their views
RLGI> are more a natural outgrowth of their way of life and of looking
RLGI> at information technology than they are a set of carefully reasoned
RLGI> positions.  Not to say they're wrong, or even misguided.  The most
RLGI> you could say is that they're just not open to seeing the bigger
RLGI> picture - and how it's changed in very recent years.

We could debate the "bigger picture" forever.  There are at least
three bigger pictures.  One is technological.  One is fiscal.  One is
political.  In the world of public higher education the latter two
usually kick the tail of the former, like it or not.

RLGI> The fact is that over the last six years the open-source movement
RLGI> has matured and become a factor that it simply wasn't before.  It
RLGI> is appropriate, especially for libraries and universities, to take
RLGI> a serious look at it, if for no other reasons that it's cheap and
RLGI> it fits in with the open, inclusive, uncommercialized spirit that
RLGI> forms a key distinction betwen us and the business world.

No argument on the maturation and growth.  However, one of the things
we older librarians remember is the old "open source" (whether called
that or not back then) locally developed library systems.  They were
developed in Minnesota (I was involved in the early development of
PALS), at Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern, Ohio (I was also a part of
the beginnings of OCLC) and a number of other places.  They've either been
replaced by commercial systems, or turned into commercial systems
themselves.  Of course most of those commercial systems have since
merged or died, as well.  Libraries can indeed do lots of interesting
things locally and cooperatively (jake is a fine example) these days,
and will continue to do so.  But the days of inventing new integrated
library systems from local open source tools are long gone.

RLGI> to in mainframes (NB, Linux is already at least as reliable as any
RLGI> OS Microsoft has ever produced).

I wouldn't want to get into a shouting match on relatively reliability
of Win2k vs. Linux, but from what Linux geek colleagues in the
Computer Science departments tell me, they lose compared to my Win2K
servers.  But since there's almost no way of proving one side or the
other, I'll let this one go.

RLGI> It's a wonderful, exciting time.  Yet by and large libraries have
RLGI> missed the boat.  Or, to use another metaphor, they're just sitting
RLGI> on the fence.  (This second metaphor is more apt, because there's
RLGI> still time to leap off the fence.)

Of course it is a wonderful, exciting time.  It has been since I first
worked with computers in 1960 and computers in libraries in 1966.
There is something new and exciting every day, and I've never been
bored a day of those years.

Libraries, however, aren't missing any boats.  They're just taking a
number of different boats, bound for different ports.  They realize
the world isn't black and white, and that there are more than two
sides to any fence you care to build.  They also know that sitting on
fences tends to lead to a pain in the ass.

RLGI> If you think about it, this is hardly a suprise.  Many libraries
RLGI> look at the world like my old hippie mainframer pals.  Only instead
RLGI> of getting that warm feeling from IBM, they get their warm feeling
RLGI> by hiring anemic IT staffs then buying big, monololithic packages
RLGI> from OPAC vendors who charge them enormous amounts of money for 
RLGI> what is, after all, generally unremarkable software.

One of the reasons that many universities have anemic IT staffs (and
I'm NOT saying we do here in Boise) is due to the anemic salaries that
legislators are willing to pay.  The same goes for boards of many
private schools (though perhaps not Brown), for city councils and
library boards, and so forth.  Everybody wants free lunches from the
government but doesn't want to pay for them.

RLGI>  Yet there's no
RLGI> outrage.  And when people cough up truly innovative ideas like band-
RLGI> ing together to seriously force the vendors' hands, or joining up
RLGI> to create something like an open-source OPAC, they are usually 
RLGI> scoffed at.  (I've seen this; and yes, ideas have been floated for
RLGI> an open-source OPAC; I've seen consortial proposals, and one actual
RLGI> business plan).

When you see someone cough up the money for the business plan, and the
open source OPAC exists, let me know.  Remember, however, that an OPAC
is only one small part of the total integrated library system that
is needed these days.  I can't imagine many libraries of any size
buying JUST an OPAC if it didn't also have serials control,
acquisitions, electronic reserve, circulation, etc, etc.

RLGI> The fact is that libraries, although sometimes offering shining ex-
RLGI> amples of exciting new initiatives, are all too often bastions of
RLGI> tired, apathetic, if not downright reactionary, thinking when it
RLGI> comes to IT.

I've never considered myself tired, apathetic, or reactionary.  If you
do, oh, well.....   However, I do live in a real world library and not
an ivory tower (though my office was once on the top [fourth] floor).

RLGI> An unwillingness to look seriously at open-source software, where
RLGI> it is _appropriate_, and seriously retrain to use it effectively,
RLGI> is just a symptom of that way of thinking.

Once again, we continue to look at and use open source tools where
appropriate.  You are welcome to check out our implementation of jake.
I'm still waiting to find the other open source tools that will fit
our needs.

cheers

dan

-- 
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.postcard.org  www.gailndan.com