Tuesday 25 October 2011

Open-Source Software

So this week's discussion is on open-source software.

I think the first thing that has to be clarified is 'what is open source software', since a lot of people assume that's 'anything I can legally download for free from the internet.'  

Not true.  Open source software (OSS), is where the source code and programing is shared, so that users can a) contribute to the production process
b) easily make their own alterations to the program.

OSS is almost always free.  This means that OSS tends to be very popular, because it's free or very low cost.   The drawback there is the variability of quality.  There is some OSS I've used myself (OpenOffice, a OSS word processing program), and GIMP (an OSS image editing suite), that are just as good as their commercial counterparts.  And then there's some OSS that's absolutely terrible.

The good side of OSS is the adaptability and flexibility of the software, as well as the cost. Since the software is easily alterable, it can be altered to do many things without the need for buying a different version.  It can also be altered so it works better with other software.  And there are a good many OSS programs out there that are just as good as their commercial counterparts, sometimes better.

However, there are some downsides.

The first is that OSS software, having visible and shareable source code, can be hacked/infected more easily -- if someone makes the attempt.  Most systems do not use OSS software that is easily infectable, so attempts are few and far between, but they are there.
The second is the variable quality.  Some OSS is wonderful.  Some OSS is terrible. 
The third can be in the fine print.  While a lot of OSS programs stay away from the lengthy, legally-worded ELUA (the agreement you have to accept to use/install software), some do not allow comercial use, and there are usually restrictions on resale.  But depending on the mind of the creator, there can be esoteric restrictions as well.

Tuesday 18 October 2011

Enriched Content in a ILS

Prompted by this week's course discussion, I got to thinking about the implimentation of enriched content in an ILS, and realized that I personally don't like it. 

Now, maybe I'm just a technological luddite who remembers using a card catalog, but I often find that additional content often obscures the information I am looking for.  I don't want a scanned picture of the cover art, I want the subject keywords.   Or maybe it's just a case of too much information in one spot.

Many libraries have yet to use extensive enriched content. And I have to wonder if it's truly needed.  I can see the benefits; most definitely, especially on material such as user-reviews, images, and excerpts.  For digital media, or when you are browsing a catalog for an inter-library loan, enriched content may help you decide if that is the media you want.But at times it seems that those are emphasized -over- the basic bibliographic material of the item, which, at least for me, distracts me from the basic information I am looking for.