H S Rai, I think that time and resources expended on this topic is a waste. Even if the cost factors were not in Koha's favor, flexibility and customization dictate the usage of non proprietary software. Here in the United States, most in libraries and academia are so brainwashed (maybe intellectually lazy would be a better term) that even when I offer to set up open soft software for free and give them the server, they still prefer to take the lazy way out and pay exorbitant sums for inferior proprietary software. I have virtually given up such endeavors here in the US. They will have to suffer the consequences of such insane decisions when their economy inevitably contracts due to worker laziness and incompetence. I for example am working in the Central Asian region, where management is very receptive since they do not have any other choice (no funds available for proprietary software). Much like the farmer who has to build it himself, they will either have to bite the bullet and use Open Source Software, or never enter the information technology age. A Chinese proverb states "do not cast your pearls in front of swine" and we should not waste our time on such endeavors. Every resource spent on improving the software is a much better option since it will help people who are willing to use it, instead of wasting our precious time trying to convince people who should know better. Gerry wrote:
Yesterday at 5:24am -0800 BWS Johnson wrote:
I thank Paul POULAIN for providing detail about contribution by different developers.
So, some comparison of this sort (cost to benefit ratio, total cost of ownership etc), which may help potential user or decision maker to take infomed decision and not be misguided by marketing executive of proprietary software
That's not an easy question at all.
Agreed. But if respectable members on this list pool their information to have a such type of white paper, then that will boost usage and promotion of Koha.
Is there something like "Koha advocacy"?