[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [RM 2.7] Evergreen 2.7 RC1 - Summary
Hello folks, This short update is regarding the Evergreen 2.7.0 RC1 files which have just been uploaded to the Evergreen website's downloads page. Here are those files thus far: http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/Evergreen-ILS-2.7.0-rc1.tar.gz http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/Evergreen-ILS-2.7.0-rc1.tar.gz.md5 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-client-2.7.0-rc1_i686.tar.bz2 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-client-2.7.0-rc1_i686.tar.bz2.md5 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-client-2.7.0-rc1_x86_64.tar.bz2 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-client-2.7.0-rc1_x86_64.tar.bz2.md5 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-setup-2.7.0-rc1.exe http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/evergreen-setup-2.7.0-rc1.exe.md5 http://evergreen-ils.org/downloads/previews/ChangeLog-2.6-2.7.0-rc1 A full list of the different Launchpad targets from the 2.7.0-RC1 build can be found here: https://launchpad.net/evergreen/2.7/2.7.0-rc1 Also, there was a beta2 which I missed announcing, Launchpad entries for that can be found too: https://launchpad.net/evergreen/2.7/2.7.0-beta2 As of this release candidate, I'm switching my focus now to assisting the Documentation Interest Group with ongoing documentation efforts and also helping to clean up / revise the installation instructions to make it easier for folks to install / test the web client preview for the circulation module. As an additional word of caution, there are some known bugs with Evergreen 2.7 series and Ubuntu 14.04 server (this is the first release to begin adding support of that Ubuntu LTS). Efforts are still ongoing in identifying and resolving the bugs, so we do *not* recommend using Ubuntu 14.04 at this time and suggest staying on with Ubuntu 12.04 if you are a Ubuntu user. More to follow, thanks everyone who's helped so far in this release process! Next milestone is set for Evergreen 2.7.0 (the big one!) on Thursday, September 18, 2014. -- Ben -- Benjamin Shum Evergreen Systems Manager Bibliomation, Inc. 24 Wooster Ave. Waterbury, CT 06708 203-577-4070, ext. 113
[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Compatible receipt printers
We need to change our receipt printers, and I'd like to find out if anyone is using the Epson TM-T20II receipt printer with Evergreen? This is a newer version of the T20 printer, apparently. Is anyone aware of any compatibility issues? Thank you. Carol Dinges Library Services Manager Lebanon Public Library 55 Academy St. Lebanon, OR 97355 (541) 258-4232
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy
Thanks for the feedback Brad and thanks to Chris for his comments! I have to say Chris' comments gave me a moment of pause to rethink the proposal. In thinking back to the time before we implemented the new vendor listing procedures, the community had a vendor page that included 1) several vendors providing Evergreen services 2) some outdated listings for vendors that were no longer offering Evergreen services and 3) a few vendors who, from all appearances, had never been in the Evergreen business. Even with the new policy, we will always have a problem where we might have outdated listings until somebody notices that the vendor is no longer providing Evergreen services. However, I do think the new policy has been great for removing those vendors who really didn't work with Evergreen. I suppose we could have removed them without the policy, but it's always helpful to have a written policy to point to if somebody questions a removal. Looking at today's vendor page, the listing is smaller, but I can say that each and every one of those vendors does indeed provide some services related to Evergreen. Overall, I think the page provides much more useful information than it did before the policy was implemented because Evergreen users no longer need to go through the process of contacting vendors listed on the page (as I did when I was starting out) just to find out that they really don't do Evergreen. Yes, I think the link to Evergreen services is also another step that might make the page more useful to Evergreen users. However, I'm now reconsidering whether this means we should make it a requirement. Since Brad was the vendor who responded to my query, I'm going to use ESI's page as an example. As Brad mentioned, they don't really have a page that outlines their Evergreen services. It's very easy for a user to find out what their services are by looking at their What We Do menu, and, since Evergreen is listed in their Communities and Software menu, it's not difficult to see that those services are provided for Evergreen. This is the way the company chose to present their services on their web site. However, in order to comply with the proposed requirement, they will now need to create a new page. Brad kindly said he would have no problem creating this page, but should ESI really be put in a position where they are required to make this change so that they can remain on the vendor list? Let's say it's not ESI, but it's another vendor with a similar Information Architecture on their web site. In this case, the vendor isn't as agreeable to adding a new page to identify their Evergreen services. Maybe the vendor is a one-person operation, and that person is just incredibly busy and can't get to the web site change for a few months. Is it right to keep this hypothetical vendor off the Evergreen vendor listing just because he/she doesn't have an Evergreen services page? Admittedly, I was one of the first people to say required when the EOB had the required vs. suggested discussion, but, at this time, I'm leaning towards not requiring. Many thanks to Chris for sharing his thoughts and making me look at the question in another light. Kathy Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 343-0128 kluss...@masslnc.org Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier #evergreen IRC: kmlussier On 9/8/2014 9:23 PM, W. Brad LaJeunesse wrote: Speaking as one of the vendors, I don't see a link back requirement as a burden, but rather it seems a simple reciprocal gesture. It seems totally reasonable to me. It's not like you're asking us to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring. [1] I couldn't remember, so I just took a look at our website, and while we don't have a link back from any of our services pages, we do have a link back from our dedicated Evergreen page. We support multiple open source products, and our services are at least very similar across all of them, so we created a page for each open source community (that don't mention our services, actually) and link back to each community website from there. So, there are some changes required on our website in order to fully comply with this proposal (as I read it, at least), but we're fine with that. Thanks for asking for input. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DopGxUAoAY -- W. Brad LaJeunesse | President | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: b...@esilibrary.com mailto:b...@esilibrary.com | web: http://www.esilibrary.com http://www.esilibrary.com/ On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Kathy Lussier kluss...@masslnc.org mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org wrote: Hi all, This has been a great discussion so far! In addition to hearing from the general user community, I'm also interested in hearing from the vendors who are part of our community. Please let us know what you think
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy
What I'm curious to know from Brad and other vendors is if this is something they would want to do. There have been a lot of comments about this being a burden and almost in a tone as if it was a harassment to vendors. I envisioned it as a positive way of pointing community members to services they might want and thus helping the vendors. If this isn't something they would want then while I do think it would be better for potential customers there probably isn't a reason to proceed. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Kathy Lussier kluss...@masslnc.org wrote: Thanks for the feedback Brad and thanks to Chris for his comments! I have to say Chris' comments gave me a moment of pause to rethink the proposal. In thinking back to the time before we implemented the new vendor listing procedures, the community had a vendor page that included 1) several vendors providing Evergreen services 2) some outdated listings for vendors that were no longer offering Evergreen services and 3) a few vendors who, from all appearances, had never been in the Evergreen business. Even with the new policy, we will always have a problem where we might have outdated listings until somebody notices that the vendor is no longer providing Evergreen services. However, I do think the new policy has been great for removing those vendors who really didn't work with Evergreen. I suppose we could have removed them without the policy, but it's always helpful to have a written policy to point to if somebody questions a removal. Looking at today's vendor page, the listing is smaller, but I can say that each and every one of those vendors does indeed provide some services related to Evergreen. Overall, I think the page provides much more useful information than it did before the policy was implemented because Evergreen users no longer need to go through the process of contacting vendors listed on the page (as I did when I was starting out) just to find out that they really don't do Evergreen. Yes, I think the link to Evergreen services is also another step that might make the page more useful to Evergreen users. However, I'm now reconsidering whether this means we should make it a requirement. Since Brad was the vendor who responded to my query, I'm going to use ESI's page as an example. As Brad mentioned, they don't really have a page that outlines their Evergreen services. It's very easy for a user to find out what their services are by looking at their What We Do menu, and, since Evergreen is listed in their Communities and Software menu, it's not difficult to see that those services are provided for Evergreen. This is the way the company chose to present their services on their web site. However, in order to comply with the proposed requirement, they will now need to create a new page. Brad kindly said he would have no problem creating this page, but should ESI really be put in a position where they are required to make this change so that they can remain on the vendor list? Let's say it's not ESI, but it's another vendor with a similar Information Architecture on their web site. In this case, the vendor isn't as agreeable to adding a new page to identify their Evergreen services. Maybe the vendor is a one-person operation, and that person is just incredibly busy and can't get to the web site change for a few months. Is it right to keep this hypothetical vendor off the Evergreen vendor listing just because he/she doesn't have an Evergreen services page? Admittedly, I was one of the first people to say required when the EOB had the required vs. suggested discussion, but, at this time, I'm leaning towards not requiring. Many thanks to Chris for sharing his thoughts and making me look at the question in another light. Kathy Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier #evergreen IRC: kmlussier On 9/8/2014 9:23 PM, W. Brad LaJeunesse wrote: Speaking as one of the vendors, I don't see a link back requirement as a burden, but rather it seems a simple reciprocal gesture. It seems totally reasonable to me. It's not like you're asking us to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring. [1] I couldn't remember, so I just took a look at our website, and while we don't have a link back from any of our services pages, we do have a link back from our dedicated Evergreen page. We support multiple open source products, and our services are at least very similar across all of them, so we created a page for each open source community (that don't mention our services, actually) and link back to each community website from there. So, there are some changes required on our website in order to fully comply with this proposal (as I read it, at least), but we're fine with that. Thanks for asking for input. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DopGxUAoAY --
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Compatible receipt printers
While people are answering this, does anyone have any experience with making a Epson T-T88IV receipt printer with Ubuntu Linux? WM On 14-09-11 10:05 AM, Carol Dinges wrote: We need to change our receipt printers, and I'd like to find out if anyone is using the Epson TM-T20II receipt printer with Evergreen? This is a newer version of the T20 printer, apparently. Is anyone aware of any compatibility issues? Thank you. Carol Dinges Library Services Manager Lebanon Public Library 55 Academy St. Lebanon, OR 97355 (541) 258-4232
Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy
Rogan (and all), We're always looking for ways to make the ESI site easier to use, or provide more appropriate information about the services we provide. So the short answer is that, yes, we would absolutely want to put together a specific Evergreen Services page if that was what the general Evergreen community said they would find useful. If the EOB, and by extension the community at large by discussion on this very list, makes that recommendation (or requirement) with the goal being ease of use and evaluation, then we would take that as, basically, a mandate that it would benefit them, and us, to have such a page. FWIW, I (personally) am in favor of the general idea, whether recommendation or requirement, and ESI as an entity would be happy to oblige the community's request. Also, thank you, all, for asking for vendor input. As community members, too, it is always nice to be asked our opinion. Thanks, On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Rogan Hamby rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net wrote: What I'm curious to know from Brad and other vendors is if this is something they would want to do. There have been a lot of comments about this being a burden and almost in a tone as if it was a harassment to vendors. I envisioned it as a positive way of pointing community members to services they might want and thus helping the vendors. If this isn't something they would want then while I do think it would be better for potential customers there probably isn't a reason to proceed. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Kathy Lussier kluss...@masslnc.org wrote: Thanks for the feedback Brad and thanks to Chris for his comments! I have to say Chris' comments gave me a moment of pause to rethink the proposal. In thinking back to the time before we implemented the new vendor listing procedures, the community had a vendor page that included 1) several vendors providing Evergreen services 2) some outdated listings for vendors that were no longer offering Evergreen services and 3) a few vendors who, from all appearances, had never been in the Evergreen business. Even with the new policy, we will always have a problem where we might have outdated listings until somebody notices that the vendor is no longer providing Evergreen services. However, I do think the new policy has been great for removing those vendors who really didn't work with Evergreen. I suppose we could have removed them without the policy, but it's always helpful to have a written policy to point to if somebody questions a removal. Looking at today's vendor page, the listing is smaller, but I can say that each and every one of those vendors does indeed provide some services related to Evergreen. Overall, I think the page provides much more useful information than it did before the policy was implemented because Evergreen users no longer need to go through the process of contacting vendors listed on the page (as I did when I was starting out) just to find out that they really don't do Evergreen. Yes, I think the link to Evergreen services is also another step that might make the page more useful to Evergreen users. However, I'm now reconsidering whether this means we should make it a requirement. Since Brad was the vendor who responded to my query, I'm going to use ESI's page as an example. As Brad mentioned, they don't really have a page that outlines their Evergreen services. It's very easy for a user to find out what their services are by looking at their What We Do menu, and, since Evergreen is listed in their Communities and Software menu, it's not difficult to see that those services are provided for Evergreen. This is the way the company chose to present their services on their web site. However, in order to comply with the proposed requirement, they will now need to create a new page. Brad kindly said he would have no problem creating this page, but should ESI really be put in a position where they are required to make this change so that they can remain on the vendor list? Let's say it's not ESI, but it's another vendor with a similar Information Architecture on their web site. In this case, the vendor isn't as agreeable to adding a new page to identify their Evergreen services. Maybe the vendor is a one-person operation, and that person is just incredibly busy and can't get to the web site change for a few months. Is it right to keep this hypothetical vendor off the Evergreen vendor listing just because he/she doesn't have an Evergreen services page? Admittedly, I was one of the first people to say required when the EOB had the required vs. suggested discussion, but, at this time, I'm leaning towards not requiring. Many thanks to Chris for sharing his thoughts and making me look at the question in another light. Kathy Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative(508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier #evergreen
