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) >