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.

...

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

...

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

...

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

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM, SatishDpnd@Adroit wrote: proprietary LMS.  The powerful engine, but 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.

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.

...

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,

...

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

...

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Upadhyay P K wrote: training, AMC, the product, 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.

...

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

...

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

...

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

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM, SatishDpnd@Adroit wrote: proprietary LMS. The powerful engine, but 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* http://www.mailscanner.info/, 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.