BWS Johnson <mhelman@...> writes:
Easily said, but practically impossible to accomplish. And surely other users would prefer to have their
favorite feature integrated into a release without waiting for every outstanding bug in unrelated, orphaned
features to be addressed, especially if they are paying developers to accomplish just that.
The prevailing attitude in this community prior to arrival of LibLime was that features and Libraries would not be orphaned and left high and dry. I used to be very proud to go out and speak to others about the quality of the programme and the compassion of the community. The more I see the attitude that if you're not a developer, we don't care what your opinion is, the less likely I am to recommend it to a friend. The Koha release date has nothing to do with a custom contract that LibLime promises to a paying customer. A solution is easily bundled and shipped out to that client. LibLime's lack of planning is not my emergency, nor are their vendor promises.
I have not found this to be true. The quality and stability have been good. The support has been good, and Koha has been cost-saving for us. In some respects, Koha 3 has shaped up to be *too* good! About any decent techie can download it and follow simple instructions to install it, and then you have a full-featured ILS. Our library saving many thousands of dollars by using Koha is also a good thing, and it has run very stable for us. All Koha users owe something to the project, be it time, support, funding, or just thanks to the people doing the hard work (yes, even if paid, it is still hard work).
Nope, but I knew people that did on a different ILS. Koha develops
much more rapidly than other ILSs, which is nice. But I'm now worried about losing quality. We've a nearly mature product now. I think some real time in thinking over what we do in Release 4 or later is warranted. I truly believe that that has to happen _here_ and not solely on the developer's list. I'd like to see things work out of the box for different Library sizes and types. The quality has certainly improved from release to release. As the software grows more complex, this is more difficult. Koha 3 is a quality release.
There were numerous release dates slated for 3 that I feel should
have been scheduled for further in the future. As a result, numerous dates that were slated on the roadmap were not met. It would have been better to just set the date for release further in the future than to have to scrap the date time and again. I know I was getting antsy for release after 2 or 3 of them were missed. I realise that the codebase is moving rather quickly, but if that's disorientating to users and developers alike, then perhaps it's time to put on the brakes a bit. Sure, but at some point someone needs to say: "OK, it's a wrap" and then you have the latest version. One cannot proceed forever. A release number is just a number. Sure I would have liked to see some of the features of Ubuntu 8 in Ubuntu 7, but at some point they had to say "It is done, it is officially Ubuntu 7, now on to 8!" Koha is perhaps one of the biggest innovations ever for the library world. We could all do more to support it. And one important way is "support!" Even if funding is low, and time is minimal, one can just say that this is software with merits and it should be seriously considered, not rubber stamped, just considered. That is all. If you are looking for perfect you will find none if you deal with *any* software. Koha is good and has helped many libraries. The programmers work very hard and should be supported. I officially thank the people who work every day on Koha, all over the world. Keep up the great work! -Darrell Ulm