In response to the comments posted by Mariyam Shiphaa regarding my recent article published in ALIS, I would like to enumerate the follwing points:   In the world of scholarly communication, nationality, I believe, is less important than the purpose of disseminating research information.  And when it comes to open source philosophy, nationality is altogether perhaps irrelevant.  This is quite evident from the fact that KOHA (originated outside India) has gained much more popularity in India than it’s very own NewGenLib.   In open source software, reporting of bugs and shortcomings is predominantly dependent on its user base.  And when it comes to a OSS with a small user community and without any vendor support, I believe that it is a little difficult to distinguish between a real bug and our inability to find a solution quickly. Thus, the process of discovering flaws in OSS with a smaller community base (as in case of NewGenLib) is relatively slow in comparison to an open source with a larger community base, say like KOHA.   You have pointed out that I highlighted some of the problems with the software in the training program.  Actually, there has been a considerable passage of time between then and when the article was written. So some of the problems discussed have already been solved in NewGenlib community at Nabble. I, therefore, kindly request you to visit regularly the Newgenlib Community pages on Nabble.   Binding problem: The logic applied in the software is that whenever the library send its documents for binding in a lot, all the bound volumes should be returned after that billing is usually done. Partial receiving of bound documents is already there in Newgenlib, but billing is possible only after receiving all the bound volumes. The analogy with acquisition process, where partial receiving of order document is not being applied in the binding process, because here library document are going outside of the library.   The article was completed in May 2010 before the release of 2.5 versions and it is mainly based on our experience with NewGenLib 2.1 version. Thus up-gradation problem has not been discussed. When upgrading from 2.1 to 2.5, the problem arises due to overdue books. The easiest way to solve the problem is to return all the overdue books after taking a print of overdue books from desktop module. Then update the database. It will work fine.   You may like to know that the journal had got the article peer reviewed by an anonymous referee who had suggested many important points which I had incorporated in the article before its final publication.   Also please remember, that unless we are absolutely sure about a flaw in the software, we can’t report that in the article.   Anyway, thank you for your interest and your views.   With regards,   Rabishankar Giri             LIS-Forum Digest, Vol 98, Issue 24 Message: 2 Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:10:59 +0530 From: Mariyam Shipha To: lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in Subject: [LIS-Forum] Discripancies in the article on OSS Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Sir, This communication is regarding the following recent article. Giri, Rabishankar and Sengar, DS (2011). Use of open source software in the learning resource centre of Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology: a case study, Annals of Library and Information Studies; Vol. 58, No.1;  pg 41-48. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11555 Mr. Giri was the resource person for giving the training on NewGenLib to our SAARC student batch in NISCAIR. He was very friendly and helpful to us to make us in understanding the functions and workings of NewGenLIb. He mentioned some other drawbacks of NewGenlib in the class in addition to those mentioned in the article Some of them are: 1.Management of Binding: Suppose our library has given 1000 books in a lot to the binder. But the binder returned books after binding in two lots say 500 and 500, and submitted two bills. In NewGenlib, there is no provision to accommodate the two bills for one order. 2. No distinction between reported Loss and final weed out of books. i.e. Suppose in a stock verification, a book has been reported loss and latter it has been found. There has been no provision to get back the books for circulation catalogue once it is reported loss in the software. 3. Compatibility of data between the 2.1 version and the higher version. Especially in Patron circulation data. 4. Upgrading the PostgreSql from 8.0 to 8.3 onwards gives problems 5. Hardly any provision for Article indexing  and so on He showed us at least 12 difficulties in dealing with NewGenLib. While we are experimenting with NewGenLib in our Library, we have found all those are true. My appeal is that professional must be sincere in presenting the information which will help in choosing the best OSS for our libraries. or Does being an Indian, professionals are promoting an OSS originated from India irrespective of its merit.? Mariyam Maldives Rabisankar Giri Mo - 9868228551 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.