[Web4lib] RE: Open source support models

[Cary Gordon]

I think that the service models at Acquia and RedHat are much  
different from those at Equinox and LibLime. This biggest difference  
is that neither Acquia nor RedHat offer development services beyond  
their products and their contributions to their respective products.

For the most part, CMSs and operating systems are consumed either by  
sophisticated clientele who implement them directly, consultants who  
assist unsophisticated users in implementing them, or vendors who  
package them in their own hardware and software packages. Library  
system implementation is in my experience a much more organic process,  
and in most cases the bulk of the work is either done by the vendor or  
by the library under the direction of the vendor. Koha and Evergreen  
certainly open up the possibility of more libraries doing more of the  
work, but I imagine that in reality, the shift toward this will be  
gradual, and for the time being most libraries selecting those  
products will be purchasing something similar to what they are getting  
from the traditional system vendors.

It is pretty straightforward to scale the Acquia and RedHat busness  
models using traditional help desk and engineering systems. Because  
Equinox and LibLime are acting more in the role of systems  
integrators, they face some bigger challenges in scaling to meet demand.

Cary Gordon, MLS
The Cherry Hill Company
http://www.chillco.com

Karen G. Schneider wrote:

> Just to clarify, there are (at least) three companies now providing
> support for open source library software: Equinox for Evergreen,  
> Liblime
> for Koha, and Media Flex for OPALS. These follow similar models to
> companies outside LibraryLand such as Red Hat for Linux and Acquia for
> Drupal, where you pay for support, development, migration, etc., but  
> the
> code is free and open.