 |
 |
It's worse than that. The price we were quoted for hosting seems to have been picked so it can be offered with a 90% discount when bundled with a package deal with other OCLC products; buying into the on-going balkanization of the industry. cheers stuart On 01/02/14 16:24, Roy Tennant 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) >> > -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/