So the OCLC is starting to become THE one stop shop, next thing you know they will be making an offer on LibGuides. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, "stuart yeates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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/