> But that fact leads me to the thought that perhaps Gartner isn't as
> revolutionary as one might think.

Revolutionary *for Gartner* -- and therefore important in that sense, for
the people whose opinions are shaped by the Gartner Weltanschauung. These
people aren't reading NGC4LIB. (Um, neither am I, but that's another issue.)

I do think Joe Lucia's post could use broader attention. "What if, in the
U.S., 50 ARL libraries, 20 large public libraries, 20 medium-sized academic
libraries, and 20 Oberlin group libraries anted up one full-time technology
position for collaborative open source development. That's 110 developers
working on library applications with robust, quickly-implemented current Web
technology -- not legacy stuff."

That's excellent what-iffing. For those libraries to "ante up" requires a
commitment from the higher-ups. This is possible, and many library types,
*to their credit,* have a fundamentally anti-Gartner disposition that lends
themselves to understanding the value of such a skunk works and even
contributing to such activities. But for them what don't, and who are of
commercial-means-professional worldview, the Gartner report is more water
dripping on stone.

(It's not the only Gartner report favorable toward open source. I've read
most of their reports on Web 2.0, Wikipedia, open source, etc., and while
the reports are often unintentionally funny due to misreadings of the
cultural zeitgeist - remember the scene from "Brother from Another Planet"
where the two alien spies order beer on the rocks? - it's intriguing to
watch Enterprise Daddy-O loosen up a bit on these topics.)

Karen G. Schneider
[log in to unmask]