 |
 |
$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) > > >