Comments on: Sirsi-Dynix vs Open Source Software

By: Renae

Renae — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:02:34 +0000

I thought this comment was interesting: “Most libraries already have an ILS and receive upgrades as part of their maintenance contract from us…”

We recently “upgraded” our version of Workflows. It is completely different that previous versions, but training costs hundreds of pounds, which our library can’t afford. This works against our productivity, as it is taken us much too long to familiarize ourselves with the brand new software. I find that upgrades with open source software are easier to manage and do not require scads more training to get to grips with upgrades.

By: Dan Scott

Dan Scott — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:02:18 +0000

I had been successfully avoiding jumping into this mess, but.. oh well, I added my comments (dbs) to the Google Doc, based on my experiences as a Unicorn customer, an Evergreen adopter, a proprietary software developer, an open source software developer, an Evergreen committer… it’s all mixed up, but hopefully it’s a useful contribution.

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:27:45 +0000

One of our sayings round here has been “What does that Latin mean? Ex = out of; Libris = library. So let’s get them out of the library!”

The amount of bugs in the latest major Voyager upgrade in pretty amazing. And it’s continually disappointing to be told that you have to upgrade to the next version to get any fixes they come up with.

By: Some comments on SIRSI’s position paper on Open Source ILMS | Librarians Matter

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:33:26 +0000

[...] set up a google document for anyone who wanted to add annotations. He has blogged about this: Sirsi-Dynix vs Open Source Software [...]

By: Ralph Tomlinson

Ralph Tomlinson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:26:22 +0000

Wow, I was at Internet Librarian last week, and somehow I resisted the urge to go up to Stephen Abrams and ask him how it was that he was such a brilliant person, but SIRSI is just such a bad system. I know it takes more than one person to run a company, but around here one of our favorite sayings is “SIRSI sucks!”

By: Paul Sharpe

Paul Sharpe — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:32:06 +0000

My own dealings w/ Sirsi-Dynix are minimal, and I only know Stephen Abram by reputation through my friends (such as you, Mr. Griffey). All that aside, he is a vendor. It is not in his best interest to promote open source software unless it benefits Sirsi-Dynix. This is simply another example of a paradigm shift for which vendors and entire industries are ill prepared. I appreciate his willingness to have a “constructive debate”, as long as librarians understand from the start that its only logical for him to have this point of view. The paper is what it is: a marketing tool from a corporation that wants to sell you an ILS, not encourage you to build your own!

By: Colleen Harris

Colleen Harris — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:31:40 +0000

“Proprietary software has more features. Period. Proprietary software is much more user-friendly. ” Ahem. Knowing, as I do, the issues that our ILS administrator has with getting a straight answer out of Sirsi-Dynix when the shit hits the fan on these “features,” I really wouldn’t choose that point to brag about. it’s only a “feature” if you support it when people try to use it and it goes *boink*. Also, it’s tough to take an anti-OSS argument seriously when it comes from someone employed by an ILS vendor and isn’t backed by actual data. (BN: I have nothing against Abram, he’s a fun guy and nothing but nice so far as I know.) And the opportunity cost of staying with an ILS that doesnt evolve as you need it to – which no one can argue has been the case with nearly all vendor-ILSs and certainly also with Sirsi – is that you mutate your workflows to fit the flawed system, instead of fitting the system to the most efficient workflow. Harroomph to the paper, I say. I’d be happy to read something with more data & trufax with citations, though.