Re: [LIS-Forum] Myths of Open Source Software

Hello all,

Couldn't help but comment of this discussion. The meaning of the term "free" in Open Source Software (OSS) is the free as in "freedom" and not free as in "free beer". When you buy a table you are free to break it down use up the wood in ways that you want or even sell it. Similarly when you opt for OSS you can look  at the code, modify it and some licenses will also allow you to commercialize it. So you can be as business and profit oriented with OSS as with closed source software vendors. That is not the differentiating point at all.

But I am a strong supporter of OSS because they cannot lock in your data, so even when you want to move to another package you can get out the content that you have generated. If the OSS has a strong user community base then the likely hood of development and support is good. An OSS with a strong user base and a good vendor in your area who are able to provide support services would be a good option to go for I think.

Thanks and regards,

Suvarsha

Information Analyst,
HP Labs India,
Bangalore
  
--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Dr.Tariq Ashraf  wrote:

> From: Dr.Tariq Ashraf 
> Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum] Myths of Open Source Software
> To: "Upadhyay P K" 
> Cc: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 12:20 AM
> My friend Mr.P.K.Upadhyay has 
> touched the raw nerve.Leave apart the technological issues
> ,most of the proponents of  Open Source Softwares/
> Institutional repositories  deride the commercial
> interests of vendors/publishers howsoever genuine they may
> be.They are so passionate about their being against  
> vendors as if it is a crime to  be  honest about business
> and profiteering motives. Whereas the truth is that no
> library or social instituion wil survive without the support
> of such commercial ventures for very long.Despite the
> mushrooming growth of IRs both public and private, no
> library has been able to drop the subscription of journals
> substantially or reduce the budget of books.In fact most of
> us are always asking for more grants. I feel it is important
> to have a balanced and  realistic approach and not to get
> possessed-some would say get bugged , by cetain
> transient and  temporary develpment/occurances which  are
> no more than   high sounding  jargons and  romantic 
> view points if examined  honestly and without  any
> vested/personal interest in perpetuating such
> "myths" .
> 
>  
> Sincerely
> Tariq
> 
>  
> On 3/17/09, Upadhyay P K 
> wrote:
> 
> Dear friends,
>  
> To continue my view points
> on the use of open source software in India, I would like to
> clarify certain points again in response to some of you:
> 
>  
> 1. I am not against using
> Open Source Software. But who should, what way, in what
> situation is the question. It is not always better option.
> We should not use technology for the sake of technology, it
> should be justifiable according to your requirement. We
> should have a policy to review/upgrade the technology,
> softwares and infrastrure every 3-5 years.
> 
>  
> 2. But through this forum,
> sometimes message is broadcasted  that only Open source
> softwares are having the best features, web
> based architecture, web 2.0, multilingual, etc and other
> commercial and free are not having. It is not like this . It
> is the technology available today that has made the
> softwares better and service oriented. Almost all the
> softwares avalable in India are good including commercial
> with all these features. You can decide based on your
> business objectives. Technolgy is driving the future ,
> community has to use. 
> 
>  
> 3. In case of Indian
> scenario, there are four types of softwares being used:
> Commercial(doing well), In-house developed(not advisable),
> open source/free(yet to pick up), Long Project based(doing
> well). For new initiatives I would not suggest to go for
> in-house development. 
> 
>  
> 4. Let's see where are
> we placed in library automation readiness today. The way we
> used  the software ten years ago is different today.
> Because some of the most relevant requirement is :
> 
> 
> 
>  Your library database
> should be published on Internet i.e all  modules should be
> web based and network centric. Members can see the the
> things from home or remote location. Library staff can make
> data entry from remote and diffrent locations in India.  If
> you are maintaining your database and dynamic website on LAN
> or single machine (unless mandatory), you are lagging
> behind others. In case of Open source you will have to work
> hard to get it published through your ISP. Simply publishing
> static web site and hosting is diffrent from hosting a
> dynamic website on some ISP.  Reason is undestanding others
> code is not so easy. 
> Once you publish your data
> on Internet , authentication and authorization should be
> security audited. In case of open source softwares you
> should take extra precautions.   
> Majority of the libraries
> in India is maintaning their database on LAN or local single
> PC. It is not the proper automated system, you should switch
> over to latest technology. Here also let me clarify, all the
> popular softwares in India are having web base architecture,
> and not only Open Source. 
> 
> 5. Also society runs not
> only on community based services. We should also trust
> vendors and commercial establishments. Economy and country
> prospers mostly on PPP model. Always thinking that they are
> making money will spoil the trust. They are part of the
> familly.
> 
> 6. First of all going for
> any software, you should first we should see your
> organization's computing infrastructure alongwith our
> ISP for publishing on Internet, accordingly we should
> select the software either Open source or commercial.
> Platform may be Linux or Windows. LMS may anything open
> source or proprietary. But ceratinly I will not suggest to
> use the OSS or any software in isolation like LAN or within
> four walls of library . 
> 
> 7. Ministry of External
> Affairs has stoped the use of Social Networking tools among
> their mission. Ministry of Home Affairs has made it
> mandatory to publish their database on secure ISP. No
> Governement web sites will be hosted on private ISPs. It is
> also sometimes creating problems to use private email
> providers like yahoo, gmail, rediffmail in Official
> communications. They must be used privately. 
> 
> Hope, I have tried to
> highlight the issues.
> with regards
> P K Upadhyay
> NIC, Delhi
>  
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sukhdev Singh 
> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:58 am
> 
> Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum] Regarding SOUL 2.0 V/s Open Source
> Software
> To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> Cc: Upadhyay P K 
> 
> > Thanks Friends for carrying out the debate further.
> > 
> > Regarding Total cost of ownership(TCO), on the very
> outset let me
> 
> > quote "there is still debate over how to measure
> the total cost of
> > ownership of open source versus proprietary
> systems".
> > (http://sn.im/dx10z) .
> 
> > 
> > I maintain my argument that any solution (Open, Free
> or Closed) will
> > require Servers, Network Infrastructure, Manpower to
> handle
> > installation, alternation and alignment of System
> Processes (Library
> 
> > Process here) and training of the Staff and Users of
> the system.
> > 
> > It is obvious that different libraries would be have
> different
> > constraints. Some may be flushed with funds while
> others may be facing
> 
> > cuts in their budgets specially in corporate sector
> (They anyway might
> > be having tough time in current difficult economic
> situation). Some
> > may be
> > having highly trained manpower while others might be
> having computer
> 
> > departments at their disposal. For some the library
> operations 
> > may be
> > critical and time dependent (Large Universities
> Libraries ) for others
> > even manual system will still work (Small Departmental
> or School
> 
> > Libraries). And some Libraries and Librarians may
> still survive and
> > flourish without even thinking of automation. Let us
> not loose our
> > focus just because there is such an heterogeneous
> environment in
> 
> > India. But then, this is true for all spheres in
> India. 
> > Marutis  and
> > bullock carts run on the same road here.
> > 
> > We must try to understand one thing, Libraries have
> very long life
> > cycle. Libraries survive through generations. Atleast
> they 
> 
> > survive for
> > the life of their parent organizations. However
> Software Life 
> > Cycle is
> > extremely short. A software version may hardly survive
> three years.
> > Version updates is a matter of norm. So, continued
> updates from the
> 
> > software developer are a must.  So, while selecting 
> > software, this
> > issue has to be kept in mind. Now since, Libraries are
> meant to
> > survive over generations; the ideal software for
> libraries would be
> 
> > that whose developer survives over generations. Not
> just survive but
> > keep on developing the software with new requirements
> and in
> > accordance to best technologies available in time.
> > 
> > Now let us apply this test on commercial developers.
> Commercial
> 
> > developers work for business profitability. They will
> survive 
> > and keep
> > developing till they make profit in doing so. I
> remember, in late
> > eighties, there were three ‘revolutionary’
> softwares – WordStar (a
> 
> > word processing package), Lotus – 123 (a
> spreadsheet) and dBASE (a
> > database package). They were perhaps the most
> successful 
> > softwares of
> > their times and were taught in computer science
> courses. But 
> 
> > where are
> > they now?  Where are their developers?   Well 
> > their developers could
> > not survive due reasons not linked to their wonderful
> products. Well,
> > CDS/ISIS (Winisis), which also become popular in those
> days among
> 
> > Library and Information Community, is still available
> and does its
> > work for which it is meant (i.e. bibliographic
> databases). It
> > survived, because reasons for its existence were other
> than 
> > profit or
> 
> > business.
> > 
> > Perhaps, you can argue that Microsoft will survive for
> generations.
> > Well, I also do not foreseeing any ‘Satyam’ with
> it. But, users of
> > Windows XP (and many users of its previous windows)
> will soon be
> 
> > forced to migrate to newer versions (the notorious
> Vista). As after
> > few year s they will officially discontinue their
> support 
> > Windows XP
> > (infact they had given even this extension after lot
> of hue and cry
> 
> > from user community). Well, it not that Microsoft is
> making 
> > loses with
> > Windows XP; No it is part of their business strategy.
> So, even from
> > financially sound developers, there is no grantee of
> continued
> 
> > support.
> > 
> > These are some stray examples. Anyway, to cut the
> story short, 
> > let me
> > quickly come to the moral of the story – You cannot
> rely upon Vendor
> > or Business backed softwares for long term entities
> called Libraries.
> 
> > So, what is the alternative available, fortunately
> “Community Backed”
> > softwares is the answer for long term continuity and
> continuous
> > updates. These are nothing else but Open Source
> Softwares which are
> 
> > developed and maintained by ‘community spirit’.
> Since 
> > communities last
> > longer then individuals and businesses, the open
> source softwares
> > backed by strong communities last much longer. The
> community spirit
> 
> > does wonders and cannot be explained in simple
> business models – but
> > it works! Well who owned Internet anyway? How
> Wikipedia came to a
> > level that it could be compared with Encyclopedia
> Britanica. How Linux
> 
> > keeps itself going? And what is this Web 2.0? What the
> hell makes
> > sites like Facebook / Orkut (and many others) so
> popular. Well, there
> > is this ‘community spirit’ in every such wonder.
> > 
> > If youngsters are following this email; follow my
> advice – go 
> 
> > for Open
> > Source Softwares. Learn them and invest your time and
> efforts in them.
> > Discuss them and help your peers in learning and using
> them. You may
> > have to work on commercial / closed softwares in your
> workplace as
> 
> > merit is not the only criteria by which softwares are
> selected.
> > 
> > But still invest in future – and the future is
> open.
> > 
> > --Sukhdev Singh.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Upadhyay P K  wrote:
> 
> > > Dear professionals,
> > >
> > > My view regarding open source solution vs
> proprietary are as 
> > follows.>
> > > 1. There are ceratin myths about open source
> softwares. It is 
> > a good topic
> 
> > > of discussion and academic study and
> reserch.  But the moment 
> > we try to
> > > implement, problems arise out. Of course in any
> new 
> > implementation/change,> there are problems. People
> are the most 
> 
> > important component in any solution
> > > , open source or closed source.
> > >
> > > 2. Total cost of ownership(TCO) is high in case
> of open source 
> > solution. If
> > > you consider the Software installation, server
> setup, 
> 
> > training, AMC,
> > > hosting, security, follow-up, customization the
> cost will be 
> > high.  In
> > > relation to the total implementation, cost of
> software is 
> > negligible. We
> > > should not be worry about the open or closed
> softwares, our 
> 
> > motive should be
> > > Proper Information Systems Solution. The
> management and parent 
> > organization> never stop if a good proposal with
> time bound 
> > implementation is put for
> > > financial approval. Government of India has
> allocated Rs 23000 
> 
> > crore for
> > > eGovernance during 11th Plan . Many of the
> organizations are 
> > not able to
> > > spend their ICT bugdet or sometime spend anyhow.
> > >
> > > 3. In India we are fighting for the softwares and
> codes 
> 
> > developed by Western
> > > Countries- both Open Source tools, OS, Systems
> Softwares and 
> > majority of the
> > > open source softwares( for example Windows,
> Linux, .NET, JAVA, 
> > IIS, Apache,
> 
> > > etc). They are developing and launching these
> projects, and in 
> > developping> countries including India we are not
> able to decide 
> > which software are to be
> > > used. Althogh we should appreciate the efforts
> of NEWGENLIB 
> 
> > team from India
> > > and many Open Technology Centres have been
> started.
> > >
> > > 4. Only people are talking in fashion of open
> source, freedom 
> > of owning ,
> > > because it seems free but it's not if you
> talk of total 
> 
> > solution. It has
> > > become a fashion to talk  of RFID, SmartCard,
> Web 2.0, Social 
> > Networking,> MARC, UNICODE, Mobile OPAC, Digital
> Libraries, etc, 
> > even if there is no
> > > basic infrastructure like latest hardware,
> networking 
> 
> > infrastructure, web
> > > hosting , data entry plan, etc.
> > >
> > > 5. Earlier also there were almost free software
> like CDS/ISIS 
> > from UNESCO,
> > > DELPLUS from DELNET(with only Rs 7500 or so),
> SOUL for college 
> 
> > university> from INFLIBNET (with Rs 50000),  but
> libraries did 
> > not utilize the
> > > opportunity. Majority of libraries does not have
> capability to 
> > understand> simple codes of HTML and changing their
> logo in the 
> 
> > software. Actually LIS
> > > professionals are not supposed to be programmers.
> They should 
> > be information> systems manager.
> > >
> > > 6. Unless somebody takes responsibility of
> support or stamps 
> 
> > the product,
> > > it  is not advisable to use the open source
> softwares . It may 
> > be security
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > 7. I  have experience of regularly interacting
> with many big 
> 
> > organizations> and libraries throughout India that
> are 
> > struggling in selecting the LMS
> > > softwares since many years. They have not yet
> started Data 
> > Entry of books.
> > >  If they could have used even CDS/ISIS or an MS
> ACCESS 
> 
> > database for data
> > > entry at least 60% work could have been over in
> terms of automation.
> > >
> > > 8  Some libraries I have seen, are not able to
> publish their OPAC on
> > > Internet and maintaning database on local LAN
> machine. They 
> 
> > have used many
> > > open source softwares of LMS, Digital Library,
> Repository 
> > learnt in
> > > different forums and training programmes. But
> when question 
> > comes of
> > > migration, data conversion or enterprise
> integrating those softwares
> 
> > > solutions, they need huge money and running here
> and there.
> > >
> > > 9. There are around 5 lakh libraries in the
> country including 
> > schools,> hardly 10% of these may be automated
>  using Library 
> 
> > Management Softwares. We
> > > have to make them automated using open source or
> closed  at 
> > the earliest.
> > > Here all the stakeholders are required to join
> and contribute. 
> > Only talking
> 
> > > of open or closed will not be sufficient.
> > >
> > > 10. My point in discussing these issues  is not
> to discard the 
> > open source
> > > softwares, but more of providing the right kind
> Information 
> 
> > Systems solution
> > > in totality for Indian libraries. Of course there
> is open revolution
> > > throghout world .
> > >
> > > with regards
> > >
> > > P K Upadhyay
> > > NIC , Delhi
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay 
> 
> > > Date: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:18 am
> > > Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum] OpenSource Debate
> > > To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> > >
> > >> Dear all
> > >>
> > >> A good logical and time befitting debate
> started at last. I'm
> > >> completely agreed with Mr. Singh and would
> like to add a few
> > >> point in that ....
> 
> > >>
> > >> 1. Close source commercial LMSs are
> non-transparent in the use
> > >> and application of standards, whereas FLOSS
> based LMSs are very
> > >> clear in this direction (take the example of
> Koha, right from
> 
> > >> the 1999 it is trying to follow and implement
> all the global
> > >> internationally agreed upon standards e.g.
> EDIFACT, NCIP, Z39.50
> > >> etc.);
> > >> 2. Close source commercial LMSs are still not
> compliant with Web
> 
> > >> 2.0 tools, techniques and philosophy. FLOSS
> based LMSs are quite
> > >> accommodative in this regard, for example,
> Koha 3 is RSS
> > >> compliant (it produce RSS feed for every
> search query issued by
> 
> > >> users), supports Tag submission by users to
> describe a resource,
> > >> users can post their comments on a particular
> resource available
> > >> in the library. In short it follows
> participative architecture
> 
> > >> or user-at-the centre stage model.
> Unfortunately no other LMSs
> > >> is presently web 2.0-enableb;
> > >>
> > >> 3. Koha (2.x and 3.x) is web-centric in
> architecture;
> > >>
> 
> > >> 4. Fully compatible with Unicode 5.1 and
> thereby ensures
> > >> storing, processing and retrieval of Indic
> script based resource
> > >> (see www.granthalaya.org
> for a live demo);
> 
> > >>
> > >> 5. Koha 3 supports information mashup - in
> fact we are noe able
> > >> to snatch cover page images from Amazon
> without scanning pages
> > >> or writing a single line of code (see the
> site of Department of
> 
> > >> LIS, University of Burdwan @
> > >> http://burdwan01.kwc.kohalibrary.com/
> - search digital library
> 
> > >> or LIS related terms).
> > >>
> > >> Hope to see a brave open world
> > >>
> > >> Dr. Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
> > >> Department of Library and Information
> Science
> 
> > >> University of Burdwan,
> > >> Burdwan, Rajbati - 713104, WB
> > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > >> > From: "Sukhdev Singh" 
> > >> > To: "SatishDpnd@Adroit" 
> 
> > >> > Cc: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> > >> > Subject: Re: [LIS-Forum]
> SOUL-NewGenLib-OpenSource Debate
> 
> > >> > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:16:33 +0530
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Dear All,
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't think we should shy away
> from any debate. But 
> 
> > unfortunately>> > LIS Community in India
> seems to be relatively 
> > shy of healthy
> > >> debates.>
> > >> >
> > >> > If I am given a chance to implement a
> Library Automation
> 
> > >> System, I
> > >> > would prefer a model in the following
> order:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. Open Source Solution. For the freedom
> it provides in 
> > terms of
> > >> > 'owning' the systems for long
> term use. I won't mind taking 
> 
> > a paid
> > >> > support service.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. Free Software. For it won't
> burden my budgets and won't
> > >> trouble me
> > >> > with approvals of higher authorities.
> 
> > >> >
> > >> > 3. Commercial Solution. I would be going
> for it if none is 
> > available>> > in Open Source domain. I will
> keep myself ready 
> > for migration
> > >> to an
> 
> > >> > Open Source Solution.
> > >> >
> > >> > I still feel that efforts required for
> training and 
> > implementation>> > remains the same for all
> models of softwares.
> 
> > >> >
> > >> > I would still like to hear more on KOHA
> Vs NewGenLib. I am 
> > impressed>> > with the Delhi Public
> Library's ( 
> > http://dpl.gov.in/ )
> 
> > >> implementation> of KOHA, though I have no
> idea of inside story
> > >> about it. I would like
> > >> > to see NewGenLib's implementation
> available for public view.
> > >> >
> 
> > >> > Thanks
> > >> >
> > >> > --Sukhdev Singh.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM,
> SatishDpnd@Adroit
> 
> > >> > 
> wrote:
> > >> > > In response to LIS-Forum Digest,
> Vol 72, Issue 13 : Message
> 
> > >> 2 and earlier
> > >> > > discussions on the topic
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Dear LIS professionals
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The debate on NewGenLib v/s SOUL is
> simply not necessary
> 
> > >> because I feel both
> > >> > > are meant for different segments of
> LIS market.  SOUL
> > >> was developed by
> > >> > > INFLIBNET years back under the
> aegis of UGC to support
> 
> > >> academic Library
> > >> > > community which at that time was
> unable to invest in
> > >> proprietary LMS.  The
> > >> > > initial College edition of SOUL was
> costing merely
> 
> > >> Rs.15,000/- (until
> > >> > > recently) when proprietary
> standalone LMS was costing Rs.1
> > >> lac.  There are
> > >> > > more than 1600 SOUL installations
> in India.  Just think
> 
> > >> of them !  What
> > >> > > should they do ?  Get free-upgrade
> of SOUL 2.0 (with
> > >> moderate costs of
> > >> > > installation) or go for
> NewGenLib/Koha which is free and
> 
> > >> open source.  SOUL
> > >> > > 2.0 has added many more facilities
> to its previous
> > >> version.  It's web-based,
> > >> > > many International Standards have
> been adopted and it is 
> 
> > SIP2/NCIP>> > > compatible too.  Now
> think of those smaller libraries
> > >> which have only couple
> > >> > > of staff, what should they do ? 
> Use readily available
> > >> upgraded LMS or
> 
> > >> > > switch over to free, open source
> NewGenLib or Koha - for
> > >> which neither they
> > >> > > have expertise nor time to devote.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > All of us those who are adopting
> Open Source software know
> 
> > >> very well that
> > >> > > it needs substantial
> staff-time-investment - may it be for
> > >> data migration,
> > >> > > customising each function to suit
> to one's needs or even
> 
> > >> fixing small
> > >> > > problem of default currency.  Open
> Source LMS is only a
> > >> powerful engine, but
> > >> > > whether one can make a racing car
> out of it or not depends
> 
> > >> upon availability
> > >> > > of the workshop facilities, latest
> tools and machinery,
> > >> research staff to
> > >> > > support and designing team to take
> care of its
> 
> > >> dynamics.  Therefore I would
> > >> > > not blindly support Open Source
> just because it is almost
> > >> free compared to
> > >> > > proprietary LMS - but would
> strongly advocate use of SOUL
> 
> > >> 2.0 by those who
> > >> > > would like to concentrate more on
> user-services than
> > >> breaking their heads in
> > >> > > customising Open Source LMS.
> > >> > >
> 
> > >> > > SOUL 2.0 is a step towards
> upgrading efficiency of LIS
> > >> community as a whole
> > >> > > at very negligible input costs. 
> Those who feel the
> > >> SOUL 2.0 rates are high
> 
> > >> > > should enquire for  rates for
> proprietary LMS in the
> > >> market, and also how
> > >> > > much would it cost to customise
> Open Source with facilities
> > >> which are
> 
> > >> > > offered by SOUL 2.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have yet not come across any
> fully operational Open Source
> > >> LMS in any of
> > >> > > the large Libraries in India. 
> Many open source
> 
> > >> agencies claim that each and
> > >> > > every module/facility can be
> customised, e.g. Template
> > >> designs, RSS Feeds,
> > >> > > Blogs, Federated Search, scheduled
> auto e-mail generators,
> 
> > >> Customised> > Reports, MIS stats,
> Online Reservation facility,
> > >> built-in SIP2/NCIP,
> > >> > > Video-streaming facility through
> web-OPAC, importing records
> > >> from web
> 
> > >> > > catalogues, exporting records in
> variety of formats, remote
> > >> log-ins, Serials
> > >> > > Management etc., but when it comes
> to practical
> > >> implementation, it takes
> 
> > >> > > months together to mould them to
> match needs of the 
> > organisation.>> > >
> > >> > > Therefore I will never ever
> criticise indigenous LMS like
> > >> SOUL.  It is/was
> 
> > >> > > developed for specific
> cause/purpose and not for competing
> > >> with proprietary
> > >> > > LMS or to discourage use of Open
> Source LMS.  We all
> > >> should recommend it to
> 
> > >> > > all those who are short of
> resources and do not have
> > >> time/expertise to
> > >> > > customise freely available
> open-source.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Would certainly welcome your views
> 
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Happy LMSing !
> > >> > >
> > >> > > satish deshpande
> > >> > > formerly Head British Council
> Library Ahmedabad
> > >> > >
> 
> > >> > > Mentor, Nirma University Libraries;
> Adviser, KM&IC, National
> > >> Institute of
> > >> > > Design, Ahmedabad
> > >> > > M     :   098250 30460
> > >> > > email :  satish.dpnd@gmail.com
> 
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In response to LIS-Forum Digest,
> Vol 72, Issue 13 : 
> > Message 2
> > >> > >
> 
> > >> > >> Message: 2
> > >> > >> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:56:14
> +0530 (IST)
> > >> > >> From: "I.R.N.Goudar"
> 
> 
> > >> > >> Subject: [LIS-Forum]
> SOUL-INFLIBNET-NEWGENLIB
> > >> > >> To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> > >> > >> Message-ID: 
> > >>
> > >> 
> 
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII;
> format=flowed
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dear Professionals,
> > >> > >> Herewith I have forwarded my
> response I sent through lis-
> 
> > >> forum soon after
> > >> > >> the announcement of NewGenLib
> as open source software. My
> > >> message answers
> > >> > >> few questions raised by few LIS
> colleagues. Ther is no poin
> 
> > >> in discussing
> > >> > >> the merits and demerits of
> SOUL, GRANTHALAYA, Maitreyee,
> > >> Suchika, etc.
> > >> > >> At this juncture of avilability
> of open source software,
> 
> > >> what should be
> > >> > >> our (librarians) stand? What
> responsible institutions like
> > >> INFLIBNET,> >> NISCAIR, DRTC, NIC,
> Keshavan Institute, etc
> > >> should do? Government has
> 
> > >> > >> spent lot of  money various
> agencies for the
> > >> development of good library
> > >> > >> automation  system. Some of
> them were cooked half?
> > >> Discontinued further
> 
> > >> > >> developments? some of them
> never saw the light of the day?
> > >> Some of
> > >> > >> them did not get good support
> after sale or implementation?
> > >> While I have
> 
> > >> > >> full confidence in the
> capability and vision of present
> > >> director of
> > >> > >> INFLIBNET for developing SOUL
> as one of the good system, my
> > >> basic question
> 
> > >> > >> is, at this juncture is it
> necessary still put efforts 
> > and spend
> > >> > >> money on such developments,
> when so many open source
> > >> softawre are
> > >> > >> available? NEWGENLIB, apart
> from using open source
> 
> > >> flatform, uses only
> > >> > >> open standards. It has stood
> test ofthe time. At national
> > >> level we
> > >> > >> should have customization,
> migration and support service
> 
> > >> > >> arrangements on any open system
> we adopt. MY LIS-FORUM
> > >> MESSGE SENT ON
> > >> > >> 11 JAN 2008, GIVES SOME
> SUGGESTIONS IN THIS MATTER (Copy
> > >> enclosed below)
> 
> > >> > >> Goudar
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > >> --------------
> 
> > >> > >> Dr. I.R.N.
> > >>
> Goudar                         Tel:
> 91-80-25086081
> > >> > >> Sci F & Head, Information
> Centre
> > >> for      91-80-25235315
> > >> > >> Aerospace Science and
> 
> > >> Technology          Fax:
> 91-80-25268072
> > >> > >> National Aerospace
> > >> Laboratories           E-mail:goudar@css.nal.res.in
> 
> > >> > >> Airport Road, BANGALORE-560
> 017  India
> > >> > >> http://www.icast.org.in/staff/goudar.html
> 
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> --
> > >> > >> This message has been scanned
> for viruses and
> > >> > >> dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is
> 
> > >> > >> believed to be clean.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> LIS-Forum mailing list
> > >> > >> LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> > >> > >> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> 
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > This message has been scanned for
> viruses and
> > >> > > dangerous content by MailScanner,
> and is
> 
> > >> > > believed to be clean.
> > >> > >
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > > LIS-Forum mailing list
> > >> > > LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> > >> > > http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> > >> > >
> 
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > This message has been scanned for
> viruses and
> > >> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and
> is
> > >> > believed to be clean.
> 
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> _______________________________________________
> > >> > LIS-Forum mailing list
> > >> > LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> > >> > http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> > >>
> 
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> Search for products and services at:
> 
> > >> http://search.mail.com
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This message has been scanned for viruses
> and
> 
> > >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > >> believed to be clean.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> _______________________________________________
> > >> LIS-Forum mailing list
> 
> > >> LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> > >> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> 
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > > _______________________________________________
> 
> > > LIS-Forum mailing list
> > > LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> > > http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> 
> > >
> > >
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner,
> and is 
> 
> believed to be clean. 
> _______________________________________________
> LIS-Forum mailing list
> LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> 
> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr.Tariq  Ashraf
> South Campus, University of Delhi
> Benito Juarez Marg New Delhi (India )110021
> Email: tariq22@gmail.com
> ; tariq@duls.du.ac.in
> 
> 
> Ph: 011-24110221 (Direct) Fax: 011-24110221
> Cell:9868335593
> Website: http://www.du.ac.in
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is
> privileged, confidential, and protected from
> disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, any
> dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited.  If you
> think that you have received this e-mail message in error,
> please e-mail the sender. 
> 
> -- 
> 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> 
> dangerous content by
> MailScanner,
> and is
> 
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LIS-Forum mailing list
> LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
> 




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.