Paul Poulain wrote:
I agree fully with having koha - vendor clearly separated. It's then easy to add, and clearly shows there are a lot of Koha support companies.
It doesn't accurately show the number of Koha support companies, everyone except PTFS/LibLime was excluded from the survey conclusions last year because they were "not in sufficient numbers to be included in the summary tables" and it means the multi-provider situations cannot be shown. Why would anyone prefer this? Actually, I'm sure LTG has published several of the "X partners with Y to work on Koha" null press releases, so why isn't Marshall aware of this? Examples, picking on ByWater: http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15119 http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14466 http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14157 Confused x2, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha