It’s time for some more survey results. You can see part 1 here.

When asked to complete the following sentence, “Please complete the following sentence. Open Source Is…” 129 people answered ‘other.’ One of those 129 was actually blank, and so the 128 answered that were given for ‘other’ can be found below.

• full of hidden costs
• but can be tricky to master.
• a good deal for libraries
• Amazing, but administration is too scared to use it.
• first choice!
• Great if you have on-site developers
• Too new to risk trying
• A significant part of solving library issues
• more than likely not allowed by our campus IT
• These choices are way too imprecise
• All of the above
• Mixed – each of the items on your list can apply to some and not others
• Not widely enough used
• Open standards and interoperability
• How I save my library money
• needs a good tech person on site familiar with open source
• Very intriguing; I want to know more!
• Rewarding
• all may occur since there are numerous projects
• Very varied.
• Is all over the place and underpins many commercial technologies each application should be judged on it’s own individual merits within the context that you intend to use it.
• Total cost of ownership is not always apparent
• Labor-intensive
• Requires a little more skill/knowledge to set up and maintain.
• sometimes harder to set up than commercial software
• freedom from library vendors
• Hard for admin to accept
• a good resource
• often the only option; sometimes frustrating
• Sometimes not available (or known) for apps my library needs
• still in its infancy
• can end up costing quite a bit in staff time
• Offers an opportunity that sometimes is not available with vendor-based systems.
• Openly editable
• sexy
• frowned upon by corporate IT departments
• irregularly updated
• good alternative
• Hard to convince IT and admin to use and support
• often used by people disdainful of “noobs”
• hard to get training in
• a way to break out of the library systems lock-in paradigm
• Expense is in the support and development
• requires more local support
• It varies with the s/w
• not quite there yet.
• Part of overall IT solutions
• innovative
• Powerful
• correct
• riddled with hidden costs
• time consuming
• Varied
• Ethically correct
• misunderstood
• labor intensive
• Requires initiative and consumes more of the user’s time
• Too broad a category to fit generalizations
• All of the above
• Can’t generalize
• a reasonable option in many cases
• often as good as, or better, than commercial equivalents
• global
• on the cutting edge
• not worse than commercial products
• preferable to proprietary technology where the community, governance and product are of a good quality.
• is misunderstood
• good, but too few librarians know enough about what it is to want to use it
• depends on the product
• time consuming
• can help train IT outsiders in the field of your choice and act as a gateway for tech-savvy librarians to become programmers
• You can’t generalize.
• More reliable
• Something we’ve looked into using.
• Should be more readily available!
• a tough sell to IT managers
• New but has potential!
• Almost all I’ll use
• while not “free” is less costly than traditional software
• Not all are usable and reliable
• More work to set up and maintain than vendor supplied software
• Great in some instances and not so in other
• creative & responsive
• critical to success
• Not as time-saving as you’d think
• widely misrepresented
• ILS systems are not yet mature
• Free like a puppy
• May be incompatible with existing system(s) and require special programming
• a lot of work
• highly variable: some is rock solid, some is not
• Is less costly, although not free when local support is considered
• fine for those who have their own IT people to make it work.
• Secure
• Time-consuming, Useful, Like keeping a pet
• Excellent ROI
• Underused
• requires troubleshooting
• an aid to being self-contained
• the way we want to go
• Too costly in personnel
• often requires in-house expertise
• sometimes too confusing for the public
• Reinventing the wheel
• Patrons don’t know how to use it
• profitable if you can leverage it.
• An option to consider
• all of the above
• hit and miss
• The only way to move forward with a project when there is no software budget for it
• the only realistic option for me as I can’t afford software otherwise, but I don’t have funding to customize or obtain as much support as I would wish – but beggars can’t be choosers and I least it makes my service viable!
• has great potential if properly supported by a strong community of users and developers
• Over rated
• not allowed in our institution, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it is the way to go
• Freaking’ Awesome…
• is greatly misunderstood!
• Haven’t tried it, but think it is a terrific option.
• Fun!
• Not something supported by our consortium
• some support
• not permitted by my organization
• supported by a community with cool answer times (1-2 days)
• capable of evolving quickly
• not the same as Free Software
• not necessarily approved by management.
• the obvious choice
• user driven, and flexible
• not totally free but less restrictive than proprietary