blog.ecorrado.us

Open Source FUD 2010 April 22

As people who read this blog regularly no doubt know, I am a big supporter of Open Source Software and its use in libraries. I am happy to say that here at Binghatom we use a number of Open Source applications – some built specifically for the library environment such as E-Prints, and other more generally applications such as wiki and blog software. We also use a lot of proprietary software, including the Aleph ILS, Metalib [1], ContentDM, Content Pro, and so on. All of these applications, whether they are Open Source or Proprietary have there pluses and minuses.

In the past, the Open Source community had to deal with a lot of FUD. As Bob Molyneux reportedly described at the Evergreen Conference, “people used to asked ‘Open source? you going to use code written by a bunch of dope-smokin’ hippies?’ now they are a bit more educated.” Thankfully I have found that as well and that is a good thing. However, Nicole Engard’s post reminded me of something that has been a slight annoyance to me lately.

Over the last year or so at a number of conferences and on blog posts I’ve been hearing criticisms of proprietary offerings from library vendors such as SirisDynix, III, and Ex Libris. The usually related to some feature a product doesn’t have. For example, maybe a particular ILS doesn’t have relevancy ranking. The presenter or blogger will fairly point that out, but they will extrapolate the issue to all proprietary ILSs, saying something like we had to use Open Source because the proprietary systems don’t support X, Y, or Z. The problem is, they do not mean that all proprietary systems don’t support X, Y, or Z. They mean the particular one at their institution choose to use does not. I don’t know why they do this, whether it is because they are ill-formed or maybe just careless, but I’m sure most Open Source advocates wouldn’t want to be judged by the worse, or most limited, Open Source project out there. Why judge all proprietary offerings based on the limitations of some of the proprietary offerings?

If you want to make the argument that Open Source is better philosophically than proprietary, I am all for it. However, if you are comparing feature sets, please be specific to what you mean and don’t lump all proprietary solutions, or for that matter, all Open Source solutions together. While not as divisive as some of the FUD used against Open Source in the past, it is still FUD, and these over generalizations have no place in the conversation in my opinion.

[1] For those that don’t know, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Ex Libris Users of North America‘s Steering Committee.

Obligatory iPad Post, Part 1: Why I want an iPad 2010 April 6

Here is the first of two posts I’m going to make about the iPad. The next will come tomorrow or the next day. I wasn’t going to post about the iPad until I go to use one, but that isn’t stopping everyone else from posting about it, tweeting about it, and send links left and right about it, so why not me? This post is about why I want to get one. I may not get one, or will, most likely, wait until the second generation iPad comes out, but iWant one. The next post will be about my thoughts about the iPad in higher education in general, and academic libraries more specifically.

I dented/tweeted/facebook status-ed the following a few hours ago:

I’m reading email, checking Twitter & facebook on my iPhone ~2 ft away from 2 computers. Ideal use case for iPad?

I should point out I do this often from my iPhone, sometimes while on my computer. Okay e-mail, twitter, identi.ca, and facebook is only a small part of what an iPad can do, and the price of an iPad is pretty high for those tasks, but it is part of my everyday life. Also, how many other things can the iPad do, that his device, in theory would be great for. Obvious the iBook application, watching (non-Flash) multi-media, reading news and blog posts are just a few hings that it should be ideal for. Basically 90% of what I do at home on my laptop or desktop can be done easily and more conveniently on an iPad compared to doing it on my computer. Why do I think this? Because a lot of the stuff I do, I already do on my iPhone instead on my computer because it is quicker and easier. Add more screen real estate which allows for more functional apps, it will even be more so.

Take this scenario: Almost every morning (esp. work mornings) one of the first things I do is check my e-mail and calender. I used to do this on my laptop or desktop. That involved sitting in front of it, turning it on or waking it up, and reading the screen while cats climbed all over me. Now, I roll-over grab iPhone, start checking my e-mail while feeding and watering the cats, making coffee, etc. It just seems much easier and better use of my time. Now I may not actually save time over my old routine, but it feels like it does and now, at least on workdays, unless there is something I need to check I don’t open the laptop. But the size of the iPhone screen is a little small for some of these things, so I think the iPad will do this better, and make me happier. Add to this that I think the iPad would be sufficient for travel and I can leave my bulkier computer at home when I go away for a long weekend, I think it would make me even happier. Thus:

iPAd = iHappy

And that is why I want one.

I know all the criticism that it doesn’t do that, doesn’t have this, its not open, and it doesn’t come with a free pony, but I don’t care. I want something to use and if someone makes a similar, more open one that comes with a free pony I’ll want one of them, but since there is nothing else that will do what the iPad can do, the way the iPad can do it available, I want an iPad.

Uphill Battle on Digital Preservation 2010 April 2

Inside Higher Ed had a nice review of a symposium that focused on the Uphill Battle of Digital Preservation. The article points out some of the many challenges of digital preservation, especially with born digital information. In many respects I believe this is much more of a policy problem then it is a technical problem. Yes, you need technology to preserve and make information available, but that technology exists (See the Internet Archive). The bigger issue is having scholars realize the importance of preserving heir stuff, and more importantly making sure that the have incentives and structures to do just that.

The incentives, which can include requirements that any scholarly output that originated out of a grant, sabbatical, etc. be deposited. It can also include tying some promotion and tenure requirements to submitting materials for preservation, and making sure guidelines are written that publishing in Open Access journals is not looked as less worthy then other journals. Certainly which carrots will work better will depend on the institution and the discipline, but the point is there needs to be some form of incentive. Professors are busy people and they are going to focus on what will make them succeed at a university and if digital preservation is not one of those things, for most of them it will with get ignored or be a very low priority.

Tied to professors being busy is that it must be made as simple as possible for them to submit stuff for preservation. One way to do this is to have someone (most likely in the library) where they can just e-mail the paper , URL, etc. to that will do the rest. The burden of preservation should not be too cumbersome. After all, faculty are paid to research and teach in their giving field. They are not paid (unless it is there field) to be experts in digital preservation. Librarians and archivists have long been experts in preserving information, and they should continue to be so regardless of format.