<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	> <channel><title>Comments on: Open Source Software: Should You Bet Your Career On It?</title> <atom:link href="http://dltj.org/article/bet-your-career-on-opensource/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://dltj.org/article/bet-your-career-on-opensource/</link> <description>We&#039;re Disrupted, We&#039;re Librarians, and We&#039;re Not Going to Take It Anymore</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:48:39 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Colin</title><link>http://dltj.org/article/bet-your-career-on-opensource/comment-page-1/#comment-132340</link> <dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:36:17 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dltj.org/2006/07/bet-your-career-on-opensource/#comment-132340</guid> <description>Fascinating article, thanks.My Employer asked me to compare and contrast an open source solution with other proprietary software (this was for Intranet Web Editing and Contact Management Systems).  The conclusion I came to was that open source, if tried and tested, was more economically viable, but poor quality open source was more trouble than it&#039;s worth! But that conclusion was reached, as you suggested, by standard analysis techniques to the business case, and not some hypothetical battle between the theory of open source and proprietary software.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fascinating article, thanks.</p><p>My Employer asked me to compare and contrast an open source solution with other proprietary software (this was for Intranet Web Editing and Contact Management Systems).  The conclusion I came to was that open source, if tried and tested, was more economically viable, but poor quality open source was more trouble than it&#8217;s worth! But that conclusion was reached, as you suggested, by standard analysis techniques to the business case, and not some hypothetical battle between the theory of open source and proprietary software.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Open Source in Libraries at ebyblog</title><link>http://dltj.org/article/bet-your-career-on-opensource/comment-page-1/#comment-2422</link> <dc:creator>Open Source in Libraries at ebyblog</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:10:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dltj.org/2006/07/bet-your-career-on-opensource/#comment-2422</guid> <description>[...] And then go ahead and read Open Source Software: Should You Bet Your Career On It? over at Disruptive Library Technology Jester. One of the take home&#8217;s is that the problem is the evaluation of projects and not necessarily oss vs commercial. The ALA article touched on this but this one goes more in depth. The ending quote: It’s the thing few organizations understand or are willing to accept because they don’t trust their own people to research and apply solutions without the mythical crutch of a vendor. [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And then go ahead and read Open Source Software: Should You Bet Your Career On It? over at Disruptive Library Technology Jester. One of the take home&#8217;s is that the problem is the evaluation of projects and not necessarily oss vs commercial. The ALA article touched on this but this one goes more in depth. The ending quote: It’s the thing few organizations understand or are willing to accept because they don’t trust their own people to research and apply solutions without the mythical crutch of a vendor. [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: dltj.org @ 2012-02-11 17:04:01 by W3 Total Cache -->
