Anonymous ID: 73055d July 1, 2021, 10:09 a.m. No.14030416   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0424 >>0428 >>0434 >>0447

>>14030381

Many posts that seem to line up with Q delta's getting ignore or deleted. Bots attack with stupid shit slides etc.

 

Getting to the point of – how are we supposed to stick together, when the board is compt worse than fake news shit.

"It's BV" - "No it's gerbil" etc

sigh…

Anonymous ID: 73055d July 1, 2021, 10:12 a.m. No.14030433   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>14030412

https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Soon

 

Soon™: Copyright pending 2004-2021 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. "Soon™" does not imply any particular date, time, decade, century, or millennia in the past, present, and certainly not the future. "Soon" shall make no contract or warranty between Blizzard Entertainment and the end user. "Soon" will arrive some day, Blizzard does guarantee that "soon" will be here before the end of time. Maybe. Do not make plans based on "soon" as Blizzard will not be liable for any misuse, use, or even casual glancing at "soon."[1]

Anonymous ID: 73055d July 1, 2021, 10:36 a.m. No.14030577   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>14030554

When I was trying to dig on the cloning aspect, it seems that many of the Libraries are using the Evergreen tech. So dug a little, not sure where this rabbit hole is going though…

 

Evergreen and Equinox with Karen G. Schneider

 

Most everyone reading this blog is familiar with Karen G. Schneider. As a recent member of the Techsource team, she has helped us all understand technology a little more clearly. Her new job as Community Librarian for Equinox Software, Inc. involves working to expand library and librarians knowledge about the Open Source ILS, Evergreen.

 

I was able to track her down, and ask her a few questions about Evergreen, libraries, and the ILS. As always, she never fails to inform.

 

What does Equinox and Evergreen bring to libraries that "traditional" ILS vendors and products might not?

 

First, Evergreen has robust, contemporary code—not that hodgepodge of old code typical of older, legacy products. It’s not even module-based; it’s built from the ground up around service-oriented architecture, which makes it uniquely compatible with the needs of libraries seeking to wed their ILS with other products. It’s great out of the box, but it’s inherently friendly to other products as well. Plus if you aren’t hiding your code, it’s much easier to interoperate with other products.

 

Second, the open source model is very different, and completely changes the conversation. In the old model, the proprietary code was the vendor’s prize product, to be hidden away (though sometimes they were hiding it for other reasons—like how bad it was). Librarians thought they were in the business of buying these products. But what happened? Buyer’s remorse quickly set in as soon as the librarians realized that this old model almost forces vendors to skimp on the real products—which are service and forward development.

 

The library environment is particularly well-suited for open source. We’re by nature a sharing profession, and we play well with others. Yet we’re never extravagantly funded and most of us are in the role of being careful stewards of the public’s money. The commercial open source model allows us to pay for support and this time, actually receive it, and it also means we are no longer subject to that most traumatic experience, vendor abandonment. I know librarians who were actually trained on Taos, the product DRA never delivered. I know librarians who signed contracts with companies that knew they were being bought out or going out of business and said nothing. Over and over again, old-style legacy companies made promises they couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver on, and we stood there waiting and waiting, and then had to turn to our stakeholders and say, “We wuz robbed!” With open source, we own our own code—and therefore, our own destiny.

 

Naturally, the closed-source vendors spread a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about open source, and administrators who came of age in the old paradigm can be susceptible to those stories. My favorite FUD of the moment is that open source isn’t “mature.” In our profession we are dragged down by software so “mature,” it cannot handle high transaction loads(Georgia PINES recently had a 100,000-circ day,and Evergreen didn’t bat an eye), cannot integrate with newer products, and looks and feels not a whole lot different than the DOS screen on my 1985 Commodore PC clone.

 

You know how you can tell open source works? First of all, people make money at it. (For another silly piece of FUD, I’ve been told “it took a lot of coding to turn Linux into Red Hat.” That’s all kinds of silly, not the least of which is that it’s not true… but this kind of nonsense underscores the desperation of a waning industry.) Second, every proprietary software company I can think of trusts open source software enough to use it in their own code.

 

How many libraries are currently using Evergreen, and what's the growth rate of adoption?

 

We’re updating stats this weekend. The growth rate has been nothing less than impressive, particularly in the consortial arena (though we know of one user who installed it for his home library!). Take a look at our news: http://esilibrary.com/esi/news.php

 

more

https://www.ala.org/tools/article/ala-techsource/evergreen-and-equinox-karen-g-schneider