$500 this year.  Five years out, it won't be less than $495 each year, but
potentially much more.

-Wilhelmina Randtke


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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)
> >
>