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 <esukhdev@gmail.com>
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 <pku@nic.in>
> 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 <pku@nic.in> 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 <psm_bu@india.com>
> > 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" <esukhdev@gmail.com>
> >> > To: "SatishDpnd@Adroit" <satish.dpnd@gmail.com>
> >> > 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
> >> > <satish.dpnd@gmail.com> 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" <goudar@nal.res.in>
> >> > >> Subject: [LIS-Forum] SOUL-INFLIBNET-NEWGENLIB
> >> > >> To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
> >> > >> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903091302140.24277@css.nal.res.in>>> > >>
> 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
> >
> >