The only open source software that I am aware that I have used is OpenOffice. And I can definitely see the benefits for both individual and library use. That fact that these types of resources are available for free is an immense benefit. Especially when we consider the increase in budget reductions libraries are often faced with.
But I think we need to err on the side of caution with OSS as well. Just because something is free, we shouldn’t all rush out and convert. The old adage, ‘you get what you pay for’ rings a little too true. Oftentimes there are compatibility issues that cause more problems for people and organizations and result in a greater loss of money, time and energy than the use of ‘purchased’ software would. There are ways around many of the issues of compatibility but it often does require a more in-depth knowledge of the programme and/or a little extra time and training.
Having programming code that is open to anyone allows for the opportunity for continual enhancement and upgrades. And I really like the idea of being able to access these updates without investing too much time or money. However, if something seems too good to be true…..it usually is. I think that OSS has it niche but I am wary of thrusting my individual or library’s needs wholly and directly into its arms.
Good post, I enjoyed reading your opinion. I wonder though, whether you put too much emphasis on cost=quality. Certainly that might have been the case in the beginning, but now there are huge robust programs that happen to be OS. Drupal (used by the White House!) is one of most widely used CMS in the world. And Koha ILS (http://www.koha.org/) is becoming much more widely adopted.
ReplyDelete