Monthly Archives: December 2009

How was your Do Nothing But Read Day?

Okay, I admit, I didn’t exactly do nothing but read, I still had Christmas presents to make. But I did put a book on in the background — the audio book of Tolkien’s Children of Hurin, read by Christopher Lee. It’s pretty maudlin (lots of doom and…okay, mostly doom) but I do love Tolkien’s prose, and Christopher Lee has an amazing talent with the languages. (Yep, I’m one of those Tolkien nerds.)

The rest of the day I read Ash: A Secret History by Mary Gentle, an epic medieval alternate-history fantasy about fourteenth century Burgundy, a Carthage that never existed, and a female mercenary captain who became famous through the writings of her devoted followers. It’s a wonderfully compelling book; even the fight scenes are both readable and believable (read: bloody and confusing), and every single one of the characters is compelling, even Ash’s useless noble husband. I’m particularly impressed that there are only two characters I tend to get confused (a Richard and a Thomas Rochester, similar English names are doom for me), since often in books with a cast of thousands there are a bunch of interchangeable people to fill in the background, but I never get that sense with the mercenary company in Ash. I’m reading the epic 1100-page British edition, but in the US it was published in four volumes; the first is A Secret History: The Book of Ash.

Do Nothing But Read Day

My fellow Madison library school student Amanda has come up with a genius idea — Do Nothing But Read Day, scheduled for Sunday, December 20th. It’s stuck in there right between finals week (for those of us who still have finals week) and holiday insanity, on one of the shortest days of the year. Sign up and promise to spend all day in your pajamas with a couple of books and a mug of hot chocolate!

I confess, this is probably what I would have been doing on December 20th anyway, but I look forward to being joined by plenty of others who would rather Do Nothing But Read. What will I be reading? Well, I want to get through some of the library books I’ve had checked out for *cough* more than six months now, so I’ll be digging into Ronald Hutton’s Witches, Druids, and King Arthur, about English mythology, and Charles Nicholl’s Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe. And if that gets too heavy for me, there’s a Georgette Heyer on the to-read stack as well. Oh, I’m looking forward to this already.

Resource review #8: Library Technology Manifesto

Tennant, R. (2007, November 12th). Library software manifesto. Retrieved from

To wrap up my resource reviews for my LIS644 project on the open source ILS Koha, which has turned into a kind of overview on the state of the ILS today, I thought I’d post Roy Tennant’s Library Software Manifesto, written in 2007 to address the “unhealthy” relationship between libraries and library software vendors. Tennant is one of the leading library technology voices, and although this piece is a couple of years old now, I think it’s still important and interesting.

The Manifesto lists consumer rights — such as the right to use the software you have paid for, without having to pay more for it; consumer responsibilities — such as the responsibility to realize that you’re not special, and the vendor has other clients too; and shared responsibilities — such as the responsibility of mutual respect (at least until one party does something unforgivably ridiculous). I think this kind of approach could be very productive in thinking about changes and implementations to a library’s ILS.

I admit it: I’m a library school student, and my knowledge of the ILS selection and management process is limited to a couple of talks and quite a bit of reading, so I don’t have any real experience with how this works. But there’s a fairly small selection of ILS vendors, and librarians on the whole tend to be less than completely familiar with programming and technology implementation, so some of the problems implied by this manifesto don’t surprise me at all. The overall points made by the manifesto, though — librarians have a right to use their ILS to their greatest advantage, and to have some idea of how it works; librarians have a responsibility to treat the vendors and programmers fairly and without unnecessary acrimony — seem to indicate to me one reason why open source ILS solutions like Koha have become popular in spite of their detriments. When you have full access to the source code of your software, you can use it however you want, and you’re going to have to figure out how it works. When you have to contract out or hire someone to do upgrades or added features, you have a much more direct, less bureaucratic relationship with them. Open source projects can get rid of a lot of red tape that can hinder a good working relationship.

Of course, open source solutions aren’t without flaws — the first comment on the post is from someone mentioning that he feels his experience as a software user isn’t taken seriously by open source developers. The tradeoff with open source, I suppose, is that many developers work on open source projects as a hobby, and their income isn’t affected by users’ dissatisfaction. (Companies like LibLime eliminate this problem, but add the bureaucracy back in… nothing’s perfect.) Obviously this is no way to eliminate problems with the librarian/developer relationship, so the best way forward appears to be the one implied in Tennant’s manifesto: for everyone to know a little bit more about what the other side is doing, and to acknowledge both their own and the other side’s priorities in doing so.

Resource review #7: Survey of Open Source ILS

Riewe, L. M. (2008). Survey of Open Source Integrated Library Systems. Unpublished master’s thesis, San José State University, San José. Retrieved 25 November 2009 from

This paper is a thesis by a San José State University MLIS student, a thing that I am very glad I don’t have to write. Linda M. Riewe, however, produced this document comparing various ILS options via a survey of libraries using both proprietary and open source ILS options. There’s a wealth of information here, on open source generally and on library uses specifically, and a number of very fair comparisons of the pros and cons of proprietary and open source software.

Riewe surveyed 361 libraries who used either Koha, Evergreen or some form of proprietary ILS software, asking them questions about the level of satisfaction with the ILS, how the ILS was chosen, how it was customized, cost and ease of use. She then divides up the libraries into demographic categories by size of collection to compare the data.

Overall: libraries tended to choose open source ILSs like Koha for philosophical reasons, in addition to the lower cost; they felt that the principles of open source were important and should be supported. (The cost of the open source ILS was generally found to be less over time, although initial costs were higher than for proprietary software.) Users of Koha and Evergreen reported slightly higher satisfaction with the system than users of proprietary systems, despite installation and documentation difficulties. This is a valuable survey, on many levels; it offers a snapshot of the open source ILS movement in libraries, and it will be interesting to see how things might change in future years.

%d bloggers like this: