When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
$500 one. Just sayin'.
Roy


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Salvete!
>
>       Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
> St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell. Monopoly
> is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.
>
>        Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
> collapsed dorsal fin?
>
> Cheers,
> Brooke
>
> ------------------------------
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:
>
> >I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community
> is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
> peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
> options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?
> >
> >Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
> time?
> >
> >I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.
> >
> >On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, "Tim McGeary" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need
> decide
> >> between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they
> have
> >> a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
> >> replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
> >> around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to
> invest
> >> in such a project.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
> >> them off ball acne
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, "Tim McGeary" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
> >>> realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
> >> even
> >>> have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
> >> position
> >>> with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of
> sense
> >>> to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
> >> uses
> >>> Shibboleth.
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
> >> reverse
> >>> proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
> >> tons
> >>> of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get
> working
> >>> properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
> >>> EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
> >> does
> >>> (rather than improving access to their resources).
> >>>
> >>> Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
> >>> widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
> >> I
> >>> think there is a lot of truth to that.
> >>>
> >>> -Ross.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee <
> [log in to unmask]
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
> >>> download,
> >>>> with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
> >>>> administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
> >>>> systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
> >>>> also
> >>>> has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
> >>>> pasted
> >>>> and work the majority of the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
> >>>> packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
> >> maintain,
> >>>> and
> >>>> the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
> >>> conf.d
> >>>> files.
> >>>>
> >>>> This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
> >>> You
> >>>> just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
> >>> experience
> >>>> in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
> >>>> minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes
> accessing
> >>> the
> >>>> more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
> >>>>
> >>>> kyle
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Tim McGeary
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
> >>> 484-294-7660 (cell)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tim McGeary
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >> GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
> >> 484-294-7660 (cell)
>