Comments on: Open source public workstations in libraries

By: walt

walt — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:42:19 +0000

That’s useful information. Thanks.

By: Polly Potter

Polly Potter — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:38:35 +0000

The Gates grant requires use of Microsoft software and it is pre-installed. Grant also requires that computers be PACs only; cannot use for staff functions so you can’t uninstall Windows and install Linux.

Because of the Windows environment, tech support uses Microsoft Shared Computer Toolkit to lock down the profiles to reduce problems with malware/viruses. Techies won’t even install Firefox because MSCT doesn’t work with it.

By: walt

walt — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:32:56 +0000

Polly: Do the Gates grants require that you not install Linux or other software? I wasn’t aware of any such restrictions, although it’s not my field. Or is it that libraries won’t replace the software that’s already installed?

By: Polly Potter

Polly Potter — Sun, 03 May 2009 00:52:30 +0000

Open source software won’t be used in libraries that depend on the Gates Library Foundation to grant public access computers.

Without those grants, I doubt many of the libraries I serve would ever have gotten computers. With the grants comes the Microsoft software. And the need for tech support to be well-versed in fixing it.

I am glad to know about Daniel’s Userful linux success. Are the details about this published anywhere?

By: Daniel Cornwall

Daniel Cornwall — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:02:52 +0000

Our library uses Userful linux based computers. Overall we’re pretty happy with them. The biggest benefit to us has been able to put a hard stop to new virus infections and patrons subverting our locks to put on new software. Moving to open source also allowed us to offer word processing.

There are still bugs. There are some things that don’t display well in Userful’s implementation of Firefox, but for the most part it keeps more people happier longer while almost eliminating IT maintenance time on the computers.

By: Brett Bonfield

Brett Bonfield — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:16:24 +0000

Anyone else get peevish when 34-page reports on open source software are sold for $43? I’m not picking on John, who I like and respect. He has a lot to offer to libraries and he should be able to make a living offering it. But it would be nice to see ALA Publishing move more toward the MaintainIT/TechSoup model (or O’Reilly’s or… there are plenty of examples). A growing number of librarians are becoming open access converts; it would be encouraging if our publishers were working harder to make the transition.

As for the cost savings currently available by going solely open source for our public work stations, I was surprised and disappointed to find that a strict open source model would have been much more expensive, both in initial and ongoing costs. I expect that to change in the next couple of years, and we certainly make extensive use of FOSS, but for our situation TCO was lower with Vista, MS Office, SteadyState, Foxit Reader, BaseShield, and a few other proprietary packages.