Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-05 Thread Don Hamparian
Hello Riley, and everyone participating. Your email is a very succinct
summary of what many are likely thinking right now about EZproxy, its
future, and open source or other alternatives.

 As a nonprofit membership organization, OCLC strives to align its
pricingwith our mission to serve our members. Our
goal is to continue to deliver value through the EZproxy service at a price
that makes it accessible to as many libraries as possible, while continuing
to develop the service and provide support to its users. There are no plans
to substantially change the pricing model of the stand-alone EZproxy
service.

Regarding innovation, IPV6 development starts next month with an IPV6
release planned later this year. We also have some final testing on
EZproxy's GZIP compression functionality, as well as statistical reporting
features in the pipeline. And of course, we continue to make our
maintenance fixes and improvements. We will release as many features as we can
and continue to deliver increased value at a reasonable price.

We recognize and respect the importance of the open source ethic and the
breadth of open source activity in the library community and believe
libraries always benefit from having choices in the services they use. That
said, the EZproxy application provides great value to its users that would
not easily be replicated. In addition to the internal mechanics of
providing proxied access to remote users, it includes nearly 15 years of
ensuring access to hundreds of e-content targets--including a very long
tail--using many authentication models, both in libraries and with content
providers. With that in mind, we believe the current model is quite
reasonable compared to rebuilding that kind of effort from scratch.

We look forward to enhancing the stand-alone EZproxy service under its new
business model as well as enhancing the service offered with the turn-key
hosted model. Your input and suggestions are welcome, as always.  We look
forward to working together to continue to reduce barriers of access to
e-content in our community.

Don

Don Hamparian
Sr. Product Manager
Identity Management and EZproxy
OCLC

614.764.6017 (w)
614.975.5750 (m)


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.comwrote:

 I never thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense, it is
 impossible for the only product in the industry to maintain a perpetual
 licensing model, EZProxy is the only one stop shop of its kind, and that is
 exactly the reason an alternative is needed. Not because EZProxy is lacking
 or expensive (it is a great product for the price) but as many others have
 said: it is the only one, service vendors require EZProxy, we need to
 change that purely for the sake of improvement, if the OCLC has incentive
 to improve it will, but right now it has the market cornered, leaving no
 need for inovation.

 This was basically what everyone has said (I think!) and there are valid
 points for staying with EZProxy or switching, but the one that is most
 pressing: monopoly, EZProxy is a unique animal, and who knows? $500/year
 today $1000/year tomorrow, maybe even client access licenses? That is the
 real reason an alternative is needed now.

 I hope this makes sense
 //Riley

 Sent from my iPhone

  On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
 wrote:
 
  I think it also useful to think about this from the service provider's
 perspective.  There have been a few calls for enhancements/fixes in this
 thread, but with no source of ongoing revenue (for self-hosted
 installations, at least) I don't know how we can realistically expect the
 service provider to devote resources to those enhancements/fixes.  The $500
 paid for the perpetual right to run the software is good if you never
 expect the software to change, particularly for something that has the
 market saturation that EZproxy does (since there is a decreasing number of
 new subscribers to pay the bills for added development).  The same could be
 said for paying the way of the technical writers to write documentation for
 the new features added to the system.
 
 
  Peter
  --
  Peter Murray
  Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
  LYRASIS
  peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
  +1 678-235-2955
  800.999.8558 x2955



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Andrew Anderson
For me it’s a little more concrete, and a little less abstract when it comes to 
why a viable alternative to EZproxy is necessary.  It has very little to do 
with the cost of EZproxy itself, and much more to do with support, features, 
and functionality.

There exists a trivial DoS attack against EZproxy that I reported to OCLC about 
2 years ago, and has not been addressed yet.

Native IPv6 support by EZproxy has slipped by years now.  I have patrons using 
IPv6 for access today that I want to provide a better experience than forcing 
them to use a 6to4 gateway at their ISP.

You cannot proxy https to http with EZproxy to secure the patron to proxy side 
of the proxy communication, increasing your patron’s privacy.

I have requested that OCLC make a minor change to their existing AD 
authentication support to enable generic LDAP/Kerberos authentication that was 
denied because “no one wants it”.  Since they support AD, 95% of the code 
required already exists, and would make a lot more sense than some of the other 
authentication schemes that EZproxy already supports.  This closes the door on 
integration with eDirectory, IPA, SUN Directory Server, OpenLDAP, etc. for no 
good reason.

OCLC has been the steward of EZproxy for over 5 years now, and in that time, 
they are yet to fully document the software.  Every few months some new obscure 
configuration option gets discussed on the EZproxy list that I’ve never seen 
before, and I have been working with this software for over a decade now.  This 
is not only limited to existing configuration options, either — there was no 
documentation on the new MimeFilter option when it was first introduced.  I 
would have expected that the IT staff at OCLC that is managing the EZproxy 
service would have demanded full documentation by now, and that documentation 
would have been released to customers as well.

EZproxy does not cluster well.  The peering support is functional, but not 
seamless when there is a failure.  When a proxy in the server pool goes down, 
the patron is prompted for authentication again when they land on a new proxy 
server, since EZproxy does not share session state.  External load balancers 
cannot fix this problem, either, for the same reason.

EZproxy does not support gzip compression, causing library access use an 
additional 80-90% bandwidth for textual content (HTML, CSS, JS, etc).

EZproxy does not support caching, causing library access to use an additional 
30-50% additional bandwidth for cacheable web assets. (And yes, you can park a 
cache in front of EZproxy to offset this, which is how I collected the 30-50% 
numbers, but doing so breaks the “it’s easy and just works” model that EZproxy 
promises.)

Combine the lack of gzip support with the lack of caching support, and you are 
looking at around a 60-80% overall increase in bandwidth consumption.  When you 
have a user community measured in hundreds of users, things like gzip 
compression and caching may not matter as much, but when your user community is 
measured in the hundreds of thousands of patrons, these things really do 
matter, and mean the difference between doubling your bandwidth costs this 
year, or deferring that expense 5-7 years down the road.

So it’s not _just_ $500 per year when you take a step back and look at the 
bigger picture.  It’s $500 per year, plus the per Mb cost of your internet 
connection — both inbound and outbound — which can be measured in hundreds of 
dollars per month for larger sites.  If you could could cut that by 2/3 just by 
switching to a different proxy solution, that might get your attention, even if 
you shifted the $500/yr support costs to a different entity.  

Imagine never hearing “wow this library network is slow” again because a web 
page that used to load 1MB of content was able to gzip that down to 600KB, and 
300KB of that content was served off the local proxy server, leaving just 300KB 
to pull off the remote server.  How much is a better user experience worth to 
you?

Bottom line: competition is good.  Just look at how Internet Explorer is almost 
a sane browser now, thanks largely to competition from Firefox and Chrome.  If 
coming up with a viable alternative to EZproxy using open source tools causes a 
security, features, and functionality arms race, then everyone wins.

-- 
Andrew Anderson, Director of Development, Library and Information Resources 
Network, Inc.
http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes | 
http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

On Jan 31, 2014, at 18:43, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Salazar, Christina 
 christina.sala...@csuci.edu wrote:
 
 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community
 is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
 peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
 options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?
 
 Does 

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Scott Prater
I'd add to the list that EZProxy integration with Shibboleth is fairly 
minimal;  for example, it doesn't support chaining attribute 
authorities, which is an issue for us.  We opened a ticket several years 
requesting that feature, but realistically, I doubt it will ever get added.


If EZProxy were open source, and if  I could make changes to it and push 
them back up to codebase, I'd be a lot happier with it.  Given the 
market share it already has, I would think that releasing the source 
code would be a good marketing decision:  the pool of interested 
developers who could implement new features, and help debug problems, 
would increase dramatically, and also contribute to making the software 
more secure.  Perhaps with OCLC's new EZProxy hosted service, there 
would be less of a financial incentive to keep the source closed, and 
more of a product development incentive to open it up?


-- Scott

On 02/03/2014 10:09 AM, Andrew Anderson wrote:

For me it’s a little more concrete, and a little less abstract when it comes to 
why a viable alternative to EZproxy is necessary.  It has very little to do 
with the cost of EZproxy itself, and much more to do with support, features, 
and functionality.

There exists a trivial DoS attack against EZproxy that I reported to OCLC about 
2 years ago, and has not been addressed yet.

Native IPv6 support by EZproxy has slipped by years now.  I have patrons using 
IPv6 for access today that I want to provide a better experience than forcing 
them to use a 6to4 gateway at their ISP.

You cannot proxy https to http with EZproxy to secure the patron to proxy side 
of the proxy communication, increasing your patron’s privacy.

I have requested that OCLC make a minor change to their existing AD 
authentication support to enable generic LDAP/Kerberos authentication that was 
denied because “no one wants it”.  Since they support AD, 95% of the code 
required already exists, and would make a lot more sense than some of the other 
authentication schemes that EZproxy already supports.  This closes the door on 
integration with eDirectory, IPA, SUN Directory Server, OpenLDAP, etc. for no 
good reason.

OCLC has been the steward of EZproxy for over 5 years now, and in that time, 
they are yet to fully document the software.  Every few months some new obscure 
configuration option gets discussed on the EZproxy list that I’ve never seen 
before, and I have been working with this software for over a decade now.  This 
is not only limited to existing configuration options, either — there was no 
documentation on the new MimeFilter option when it was first introduced.  I 
would have expected that the IT staff at OCLC that is managing the EZproxy 
service would have demanded full documentation by now, and that documentation 
would have been released to customers as well.

EZproxy does not cluster well.  The peering support is functional, but not 
seamless when there is a failure.  When a proxy in the server pool goes down, 
the patron is prompted for authentication again when they land on a new proxy 
server, since EZproxy does not share session state.  External load balancers 
cannot fix this problem, either, for the same reason.

EZproxy does not support gzip compression, causing library access use an 
additional 80-90% bandwidth for textual content (HTML, CSS, JS, etc).

EZproxy does not support caching, causing library access to use an additional 
30-50% additional bandwidth for cacheable web assets. (And yes, you can park a 
cache in front of EZproxy to offset this, which is how I collected the 30-50% 
numbers, but doing so breaks the “it’s easy and just works” model that EZproxy 
promises.)

Combine the lack of gzip support with the lack of caching support, and you are 
looking at around a 60-80% overall increase in bandwidth consumption.  When you 
have a user community measured in hundreds of users, things like gzip 
compression and caching may not matter as much, but when your user community is 
measured in the hundreds of thousands of patrons, these things really do 
matter, and mean the difference between doubling your bandwidth costs this 
year, or deferring that expense 5-7 years down the road.

So it’s not _just_ $500 per year when you take a step back and look at the 
bigger picture.  It’s $500 per year, plus the per Mb cost of your internet 
connection — both inbound and outbound — which can be measured in hundreds of 
dollars per month for larger sites.  If you could could cut that by 2/3 just by 
switching to a different proxy solution, that might get your attention, even if 
you shifted the $500/yr support costs to a different entity.

Imagine never hearing “wow this library network is slow” again because a web 
page that used to load 1MB of content was able to gzip that down to 600KB, and 
300KB of that content was served off the local proxy server, leaving just 300KB 
to pull off the remote server.  How much is a better user experience worth to 
you?

Bottom line: 

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Salazar, Christina
I realize that the EZProxy list is the vendor's list but to some extent, I 
think some of this conversation needs to happen there too. Perhaps there's 
others there who can support an initiative to develop some sort of an 
alternative.

However, many libraries on that list though will be in the same boat as me/my 
library, I suspect: I may or may not have the technical expertise to monkey 
with other options, but I definitely don't have the time. It would be hard to 
justify to my boss that I'm spending time on a proxy alternative when we 
already have EZProxy.

When I'd asked EZProxy list about alternatives I heard about this: HANServer: 
http://www.hh-han.com/en/default.cfm I haven't done a thorough analysis of 
functionality because I got nervous about getting English language support from 
a German company, though I see now that they're partnering with LM Information 
Delivery (I don't know who THEY are either...)

I really do think that the library community needs to do something and this 
whole thread has served to reinforce that - $500 per year or no.

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott 
Prater
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:06 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

I'd add to the list that EZProxy integration with Shibboleth is fairly minimal; 
 for example, it doesn't support chaining attribute authorities, which is an 
issue for us.  We opened a ticket several years requesting that feature, but 
realistically, I doubt it will ever get added.

If EZProxy were open source, and if  I could make changes to it and push them 
back up to codebase, I'd be a lot happier with it.  Given the market share it 
already has, I would think that releasing the source code would be a good 
marketing decision:  the pool of interested developers who could implement new 
features, and help debug problems, would increase dramatically, and also 
contribute to making the software more secure.  Perhaps with OCLC's new EZProxy 
hosted service, there would be less of a financial incentive to keep the source 
closed, and more of a product development incentive to open it up?

-- Scott

On 02/03/2014 10:09 AM, Andrew Anderson wrote:
 For me it's a little more concrete, and a little less abstract when it comes 
 to why a viable alternative to EZproxy is necessary.  It has very little to 
 do with the cost of EZproxy itself, and much more to do with support, 
 features, and functionality.

 There exists a trivial DoS attack against EZproxy that I reported to OCLC 
 about 2 years ago, and has not been addressed yet.

 Native IPv6 support by EZproxy has slipped by years now.  I have patrons 
 using IPv6 for access today that I want to provide a better experience than 
 forcing them to use a 6to4 gateway at their ISP.

 You cannot proxy https to http with EZproxy to secure the patron to proxy 
 side of the proxy communication, increasing your patron's privacy.

 I have requested that OCLC make a minor change to their existing AD 
 authentication support to enable generic LDAP/Kerberos authentication that 
 was denied because no one wants it.  Since they support AD, 95% of the code 
 required already exists, and would make a lot more sense than some of the 
 other authentication schemes that EZproxy already supports.  This closes the 
 door on integration with eDirectory, IPA, SUN Directory Server, OpenLDAP, 
 etc. for no good reason.

 OCLC has been the steward of EZproxy for over 5 years now, and in that time, 
 they are yet to fully document the software.  Every few months some new 
 obscure configuration option gets discussed on the EZproxy list that I've 
 never seen before, and I have been working with this software for over a 
 decade now.  This is not only limited to existing configuration options, 
 either - there was no documentation on the new MimeFilter option when it was 
 first introduced.  I would have expected that the IT staff at OCLC that is 
 managing the EZproxy service would have demanded full documentation by now, 
 and that documentation would have been released to customers as well.

 EZproxy does not cluster well.  The peering support is functional, but not 
 seamless when there is a failure.  When a proxy in the server pool goes down, 
 the patron is prompted for authentication again when they land on a new proxy 
 server, since EZproxy does not share session state.  External load balancers 
 cannot fix this problem, either, for the same reason.

 EZproxy does not support gzip compression, causing library access use an 
 additional 80-90% bandwidth for textual content (HTML, CSS, JS, etc).

 EZproxy does not support caching, causing library access to use an 
 additional 30-50% additional bandwidth for cacheable web assets. (And 
 yes, you can park a cache in front of EZproxy to offset this, which is 
 how I collected the 30-50% numbers, but doing so breaks the it's easy 
 and just

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread stuart yeates

On 04/02/14 05:09, Andrew Anderson wrote:

There exists a trivial DoS attack against EZproxy that I reported to OCLC about 
2 years ago, and has not been addressed yet.


... and as soon as that gets a CVE (see http://cve.mitre.org/), 
corporate IT departments will force libraries to upgrade to the latest 
version or turn the software off.


cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Peter Murray
I think it also useful to think about this from the service provider’s 
perspective.  There have been a few calls for enhancements/fixes in this 
thread, but with no source of ongoing revenue (for self-hosted installations, 
at least) I don’t know how we can realistically expect the service provider to 
devote resources to those enhancements/fixes.  The $500 paid for the perpetual 
right to run the software is good if you never expect the software to change, 
particularly for something that has the market saturation that EZproxy does 
(since there is a decreasing number of new subscribers to pay the bills for 
added development).  The same could be said for paying the way of the technical 
writers to write documentation for the new features added to the system.


Peter
--
Peter Murray
Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
LYRASIS
peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
+1 678-235-2955
800.999.8558 x2955


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Terry Reese
Peter, 

I think that's a good point, but OCLC knew upfront that this is the model
for this product when they acquired it.  So, this should have been part of
the calculation when considering the acquisition -- but this component fills
a very important part of their overall authentication stack for a lot of
their other services (we are talking about Article proxying, but it's used
with Illiad, WorldCat Local, WMS -- so it has a lot of different uses and
has been enhanced a lot if you are a user of these other services.

I think that OCLC does a good job shepherding the development, but I think
Andrew hits why it would be useful to have an open alternative.  It's very
likely that even with an open alternative, you cannot completely divorce
yourself from Ezproxy if you use another OCLC services.  But I've had a
number of times recently where I would have loved the ability to hack the
proxy.

--tr

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Peter Murray
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 4:21 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

I think it also useful to think about this from the service provider's
perspective.  There have been a few calls for enhancements/fixes in this
thread, but with no source of ongoing revenue (for self-hosted
installations, at least) I don't know how we can realistically expect the
service provider to devote resources to those enhancements/fixes.  The $500
paid for the perpetual right to run the software is good if you never expect
the software to change, particularly for something that has the market
saturation that EZproxy does (since there is a decreasing number of new
subscribers to pay the bills for added development).  The same could be said
for paying the way of the technical writers to write documentation for the
new features added to the system.


Peter
--
Peter Murray
Assistant Director, Technology Services Development LYRASIS
peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
+1 678-235-2955
800.999.8558 x2955


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-03 Thread Riley Childs
I never thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense, it is impossible 
for the only product in the industry to maintain a perpetual licensing model, 
EZProxy is the only one stop shop of its kind, and that is exactly the reason 
an alternative is needed. Not because EZProxy is lacking or expensive (it is a 
great product for the price) but as many others have said: it is the only one, 
service vendors require EZProxy, we need to change that purely for the sake of 
improvement, if the OCLC has incentive to improve it will, but right now it has 
the market cornered, leaving no need for inovation.

This was basically what everyone has said (I think!) and there are valid points 
for staying with EZProxy or switching, but the one that is most pressing: 
monopoly, EZProxy is a unique animal, and who knows? $500/year today $1000/year 
tomorrow, maybe even client access licenses? That is the real reason an 
alternative is needed now.

I hope this makes sense
//Riley

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Peter Murray peter.mur...@lyrasis.org wrote:

 I think it also useful to think about this from the service provider’s 
 perspective.  There have been a few calls for enhancements/fixes in this 
 thread, but with no source of ongoing revenue (for self-hosted installations, 
 at least) I don’t know how we can realistically expect the service provider 
 to devote resources to those enhancements/fixes.  The $500 paid for the 
 perpetual right to run the software is good if you never expect the software 
 to change, particularly for something that has the market saturation that 
 EZproxy does (since there is a decreasing number of new subscribers to pay 
 the bills for added development).  The same could be said for paying the way 
 of the technical writers to write documentation for the new features added to 
 the system.


 Peter
 --
 Peter Murray
 Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
 LYRASIS
 peter.mur...@lyrasis.org
 +1 678-235-2955
 800.999.8558 x2955


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-02 Thread stuart yeates

On 01/02/14 08:34, Mosior, Benjamin wrote:

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to move forward with organizing the 
development and adoption of an alternative proxy solution?

A collaborative Google Doc? Perhaps a LibraryProxy GitHub Organization?


I'd say that more than anything else what is needed is for techies to do 
experiments, document and share the results. These could either follow 
on from the example of Andrew Anderson earlier in this thread or strike 
out in different directions.


cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-02 Thread Wilhelmina Randtke
$500 this year.  Five years out, it won't be less than $495 each year, but
potentially much more.

-Wilhelmina Randtke


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote:

 When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
 $500 one. Just sayin'.
 Roy


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson abesottedphoe...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

  Salvete!
 
Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
  St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell.
 Monopoly
  is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.
 
 Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
  collapsed dorsal fin?
 
  Cheers,
  Brooke
 
  --
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:
 
  I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using
 community
  is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
  peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
  options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the
 price?
  
  Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
  time?
  
  I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.
  
  On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  
   Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need
  decide
   between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they
  have
   a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
   replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community
 comes
   around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to
  invest
   in such a project.
  
  
   On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs 
 rchi...@cucawarriors.com
  wrote:
  
   But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this
 throw
   them off ball acne
  
   Sent from my iPhone
  
   On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  
   So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
   realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I
 don't
   even
   have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
   position
   with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of
  sense
   to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that
 heavily
   uses
   Shibboleth.
  
   Tim
  
  
   On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
   Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
   reverse
   proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
   tons
   of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get
  working
   properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
   EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what
 EZProxy
   does
   (rather than improving access to their resources).
  
   Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
   widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy
 was.
   I
   think there is a lot of truth to that.
  
   -Ross.
  
  
   On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee 
  kyle.baner...@gmail.com
   wrote:
  
   EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
   download,
   with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
   administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and
 Windows
   systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.
  It
   also
   has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
   pasted
   and work the majority of the time.
  
   To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
   packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
   maintain,
   and
   the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
   conf.d
   files.
  
   This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy
 easy.
   You
   just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
   experience
   in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
   minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes
  accessing
   the
   more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
  
   kyle
  
  
  
   --
   Tim McGeary
   timmcge...@gmail.com
   GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
   484-294-7660 (cell)
  
  
  
   --
   Tim McGeary
   timmcge...@gmail.com
   GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
   484-294-7660 (cell)
 



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-02 Thread Riley Childs
The institution sacrifices 10 books each year, in the long term this is a lot 
of money, it isn't a mater of money also, it is the issue there is no 
alternative to EZProxy.

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 2, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Wilhelmina Randtke rand...@gmail.com wrote:

 $500 this year.  Five years out, it won't be less than $495 each year, but
 potentially much more.

 -Wilhelmina Randtke


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Roy Tennant roytenn...@gmail.com wrote:

 When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
 $500 one. Just sayin'.
 Roy


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson abesottedphoe...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Salvete!

  Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
 St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell.
 Monopoly
 is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.

   Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
 collapsed dorsal fin?

 Cheers,
 Brooke

 --
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:

 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using
 community
 is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
 peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
 options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the
 price?

 Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
 time?

 I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need
 decide
 between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they
 have
 a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
 replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community
 comes
 around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to
 invest
 in such a project.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs 
 rchi...@cucawarriors.com
 wrote:

 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this
 throw
 them off ball acne

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I
 don't
 even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of
 sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that
 heavily
 uses
 Shibboleth.

 Tim


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get
 working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what
 EZProxy
 does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).

 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy
 was.
 I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.

 -Ross.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee 
 kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and
 Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.
 It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.

 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.

 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy
 easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes
 accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

 kyle



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-02 Thread stuart yeates

It's worse than that.

The price we were quoted for hosting seems to have been picked so it can 
be offered with a 90% discount when bundled with a package deal with 
other OCLC products; buying into the on-going balkanization of the industry.


cheers
stuart

On 01/02/14 16:24, Roy Tennant wrote:

When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
$500 one. Just sayin'.
Roy


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson abesottedphoe...@yahoo.comwrote:


Salvete!

   Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell. Monopoly
is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.

Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
collapsed dorsal fin?

Cheers,
Brooke

--
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:


I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community

is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?


Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer

time?


I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:


Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need

decide

between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they

have

a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to

invest

in such a project.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com

wrote:


But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
them off ball acne

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com

wrote:


So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't

even

have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of

position

with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of

sense

to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily

uses

Shibboleth.

Tim


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com

wrote:


Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of

reverse

proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are

tons

of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get

working

properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy

does

(rather than improving access to their resources).

Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.

I

think there is a lot of truth to that.

-Ross.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee 

kyle.baner...@gmail.com

wrote:



EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary

download,

with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
also
has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
pasted
and work the majority of the time.

To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and

maintain,

and
the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache

conf.d

files.

This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.

You

just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no

experience

in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes

accessing

the

more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

kyle




--
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (cell)




--
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (cell)







--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-02-02 Thread Riley Childs
So the OCLC is starting to become THE one stop shop, next thing you know they 
will be making an offer on LibGuides.

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:43 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 It's worse than that.

 The price we were quoted for hosting seems to have been picked so it can
 be offered with a 90% discount when bundled with a package deal with
 other OCLC products; buying into the on-going balkanization of the industry.

 cheers
 stuart

 On 01/02/14 16:24, Roy Tennant wrote:
 When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
 $500 one. Just sayin'.
 Roy


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson 
 abesottedphoe...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Salvete!

   Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
 St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell. Monopoly
 is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.

Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
 collapsed dorsal fin?

 Cheers,
 Brooke

 --
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:

 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community
 is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
 peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
 options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?

 Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
 time?

 I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need
 decide
 between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they
 have
 a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
 replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
 around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to
 invest
 in such a project.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com
 wrote:

 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
 them off ball acne

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
 even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of
 sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
 uses
 Shibboleth.

 Tim


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get
 working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
 does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).

 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
 I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.

 -Ross.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee 
 kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.

 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.

 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes
 accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

 kyle



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Ryan Eby
There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and using it 
as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then from Oregon?, were 
the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but I’m not sure if anything 
took off or if they have documentation somewhere of how far they got. I 
remember it being about getting something a consortia of libraries could use 
together so may have been more complex requirements than what is looked for 
here.

http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensible_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F

--
Ryan Eby


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Cary Gordon
If there is a demand for an EZProxy alternative, nginx might be a better way to 
go. Nginx is a reverse proxy ootb, and it is very configurable. It is fast, 
simple and, notably, it is fast.

Cary

On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Ryan Eby ryan...@gmail.com wrote:

 There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and using 
 it as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then from Oregon?, 
 were the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but I’m not sure if 
 anything took off or if they have documentation somewhere of how far they 
 got. I remember it being about getting something a consortia of libraries 
 could use together so may have been more complex requirements than what is 
 looked for here.
 
 http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensible_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F
 
 --
 Ryan Eby


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Kyle Banerjee
Many good ideas in this thread.

One thing I'd just like to throw out there is that there are some ideas
that may be good to distribute in the form of virtual machines and this
might be one of them.

Proxying is needed by practically all libraries and takes little in terms
of systems resources. But many libraries with limited IT resources would
have trouble implementing alternatives to ezproxy -- especially if they
have to use authentication features not supported by Apache HTTPD. Even for
those who do have enough staff time, it seems kind of nuts to have everyone
spending time solving the same problems.

kyle


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Ryan Eby ryan...@gmail.com wrote:

 There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and
 using it as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then from
 Oregon?, were the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but I'm not
 sure if anything took off or if they have documentation somewhere of how
 far they got. I remember it being about getting something a consortia of
 libraries could use together so may have been more complex requirements
 than what is looked for here.


 http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensible_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F

 --
 Ryan Eby



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Timothy Cornwell
I have an IT background and some apache proxy experience, and it seems fairly 
easy - for me.  I understand it may not be for libraries with limited IT 
resources.  I am not at all familiar with EZProxy, so I have to ask:

What is it about EZProxy that makes it attractive for those libraries with 
limited IT resources?

-T



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle 
Banerjee
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:14 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

Many good ideas in this thread.

One thing I'd just like to throw out there is that there are some ideas that 
may be good to distribute in the form of virtual machines and this might be one 
of them.

Proxying is needed by practically all libraries and takes little in terms of 
systems resources. But many libraries with limited IT resources would have 
trouble implementing alternatives to ezproxy -- especially if they have to use 
authentication features not supported by Apache HTTPD. Even for those who do 
have enough staff time, it seems kind of nuts to have everyone spending time 
solving the same problems.

kyle


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Ryan Eby ryan...@gmail.com wrote:

 There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and 
 using it as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then 
 from Oregon?, were the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but 
 I'm not sure if anything took off or if they have documentation 
 somewhere of how far they got. I remember it being about getting 
 something a consortia of libraries could use together so may have been 
 more complex requirements than what is looked for here.


 http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensibl
 e_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F

 --
 Ryan Eby



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Joshua Welker
It is ubiquitous in the library community, so support is easy to find.
There is also a lot of EZproxy support from vendors, who often post
EZproxy config setups for their databases on their support sites.

Josh Welker

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Timothy Cornwell
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:44 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

I have an IT background and some apache proxy experience, and it seems
fairly easy - for me.  I understand it may not be for libraries with
limited IT resources.  I am not at all familiar with EZProxy, so I have to
ask:

What is it about EZProxy that makes it attractive for those libraries with
limited IT resources?

-T



-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
Kyle Banerjee
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:14 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

Many good ideas in this thread.

One thing I'd just like to throw out there is that there are some ideas
that may be good to distribute in the form of virtual machines and this
might be one of them.

Proxying is needed by practically all libraries and takes little in terms
of systems resources. But many libraries with limited IT resources would
have trouble implementing alternatives to ezproxy -- especially if they
have to use authentication features not supported by Apache HTTPD. Even
for those who do have enough staff time, it seems kind of nuts to have
everyone spending time solving the same problems.

kyle


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Ryan Eby ryan...@gmail.com wrote:

 There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and
 using it as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then
 from Oregon?, were the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but
 I'm not sure if anything took off or if they have documentation
 somewhere of how far they got. I remember it being about getting
 something a consortia of libraries could use together so may have been
 more complex requirements than what is looked for here.


 http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensibl
 e_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F

 --
 Ryan Eby



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Andrew Anderson
EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary download, with a 
built-in administrative interface that makes most common administrative tasks 
point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows systems, and requires very 
little in the way of resources to run.  It also has a library of a few hundred 
vendor stanzas that can be copied and pasted and work the majority of the time.

To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be packaged 
in such a way that it is equally easy to install and maintain, and the library 
of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache conf.d files.

Re: nginx from another reply in this thread, I am keeping my eye on it for 
future projects, but one thing it does not have currently is the wealth of 
Apache modules.  Some of the authentication that is commonly used in a library 
setting are supported by existing Apache modules, while nginx does not support 
them. Since it was developed with a different set of priorities, supporting 
things like Athens/CAS/SAML were not the main focus of nginx historically.

-- 
Andrew Anderson, Director of Development, Library and Information Resources 
Network, Inc.
http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes | 
http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:43, Timothy Cornwell tc...@cornell.edu wrote:

 I have an IT background and some apache proxy experience, and it seems fairly 
 easy - for me.  I understand it may not be for libraries with limited IT 
 resources.  I am not at all familiar with EZProxy, so I have to ask:
 
 What is it about EZProxy that makes it attractive for those libraries with 
 limited IT resources?
 
 -T
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Kyle 
 Banerjee
 Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:14 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?
 
 Many good ideas in this thread.
 
 One thing I'd just like to throw out there is that there are some ideas that 
 may be good to distribute in the form of virtual machines and this might be 
 one of them.
 
 Proxying is needed by practically all libraries and takes little in terms of 
 systems resources. But many libraries with limited IT resources would have 
 trouble implementing alternatives to ezproxy -- especially if they have to 
 use authentication features not supported by Apache HTTPD. Even for those who 
 do have enough staff time, it seems kind of nuts to have everyone spending 
 time solving the same problems.
 
 kyle
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Ryan Eby ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 There was actually a breakout in 2011? Code4lib discussing Apache and 
 using it as a proxy. I believe Terry Reese and Jeremy Frumkin, then 
 from Oregon?, were the ones leading it. There was lots of interest but 
 I'm not sure if anything took off or if they have documentation 
 somewhere of how far they got. I remember it being about getting 
 something a consortia of libraries could use together so may have been 
 more complex requirements than what is looked for here.
 
 
 http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Can_we_hack_on_this:_Open_Extensibl
 e_Proxy:_going_beyond_EZProxy%3F
 
 --
 Ryan Eby
 


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Kyle Banerjee
 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and pasted
 and work the majority of the time.

 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and maintain, and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache conf.d
 files.


This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy. You
just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no experience
in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing the
more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

kyle


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Ross Singer
Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of reverse
proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are tons
of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy does
(rather than improving access to their resources).

Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.  I
think there is a lot of truth to that.

-Ross.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.comwrote:

  EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary download,
  with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
  administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
  systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
  has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
  and work the majority of the time.
 
  To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
  packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and maintain,
 and
  the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache conf.d
  files.
 

 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy. You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

 kyle



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Mosior, Benjamin
Does anyone have any thoughts on how to move forward with organizing the 
development and adoption of an alternative proxy solution? 

A collaborative Google Doc? Perhaps a LibraryProxy GitHub Organization?

Benjamin Mosior


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Tim McGeary
So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't even
have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of position
with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily uses
Shibboleth.

Tim


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).

 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.  I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.

 -Ross.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:

   EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
   with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
   administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
   systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
  also
   has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
  pasted
   and work the majority of the time.
  
   To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
   packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and maintain,
  and
   the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
   files.
  
 
  This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
  just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
  in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
  minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
 the
  more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
 
  kyle
 




-- 
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Riley Childs
But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw them 
off ball acne

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily uses
 Shibboleth.

 Tim


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).

 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.  I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.

 -Ross.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.

 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.

 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

 kyle



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Tim McGeary
Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need decide
between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they have
a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to invest
in such a project.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.comwrote:

 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
 them off ball acne

 Sent from my iPhone

  On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
  realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
 even
  have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
  with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
  to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
 uses
  Shibboleth.
 
  Tim
 
 
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
  proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
  of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
  properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
  EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
 does
  (rather than improving access to their resources).
 
  Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
  widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
  I
  think there is a lot of truth to that.
 
  -Ross.
 
 
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
  download,
  with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
  administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
  systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
  also
  has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
  pasted
  and work the majority of the time.
 
  To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
  packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
  and
  the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
  conf.d
  files.
 
  This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
  You
  just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
  experience
  in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
  minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
  the
  more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
 
  kyle
 
 
 
  --
  Tim McGeary
  timmcge...@gmail.com
  GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
  484-294-7660 (cell)




-- 
Tim McGeary
timmcge...@gmail.com
GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Salazar, Christina
I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community is 
vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC peeps (just 
kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our options if OCLC 
wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?

Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer time?

I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need decide
 between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they have
 a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
 replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
 around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to invest
 in such a project.
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.comwrote:
 
 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
 them off ball acne
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
 even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
 uses
 Shibboleth.
 
 Tim
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
 does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).
 
 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
 I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.
 
 -Ross.
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.
 
 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.
 
 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
 
 kyle
 
 
 
 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)
 
 
 
 -- 
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Kyle Banerjee
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Salazar, Christina 
christina.sala...@csuci.edu wrote:

 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community
 is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
 peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
 options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?

 Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
 time?


In all fairness, most of us could be said to be captive to a number of open
source tools.

OCLC is a library cooperative so member libraries have mechanisms to push
things one way or the other (keeping in mind that it's a big ship to turn).
But every now and then, member libraries speak up when they see something
that they think doesn't serve their interests and OCLC changes as a result
-- remember the record use policy flap a couple years back? I seriously
doubt they'd do anything too nutty with EZProxy because too many libraries
care about it.

kyle


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread BWS Johnson
Salvete!

  Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall St. 
experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell. Monopoly is only 
ever in the interest of those that hold it.

   Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your collapsed 
dorsal fin?

Cheers,
Brooke

--
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:

I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community is 
vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC peeps 
(just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our options if 
OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?

Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer time?

I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need decide
 between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they have
 a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
 replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
 around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to invest
 in such a project.
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs 
 rchi...@cucawarriors.comwrote:
 
 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
 them off ball acne
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
 even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
 uses
 Shibboleth.
 
 Tim
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
 does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).
 
 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
 I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.
 
 -Ross.
 
 
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.
 
 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.
 
 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
 
 kyle
 
 
 
 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)
 
 
 
 -- 
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Riley Childs
Exactly! OCLC already knows they are the only game in town, that is what drove 
them to the new pricing scheme, so what is to stop them from jacking up prices 
even more? They are the Gold, Silver, and Bronze standard, so maybe it is time 
to develop an alternative, in the hope it will garner vendor support.

//Riley

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Salazar, Christina 
 christina.sala...@csuci.edu wrote:

 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community is 
 vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC peeps 
 (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our options if 
 OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?

 Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer time?

 I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need decide
 between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they have
 a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
 replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
 around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to invest
 in such a project.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs 
 rchi...@cucawarriors.comwrote:

 But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
 them off ball acne

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:

 So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
 realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
 even
 have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
 position
 with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of sense
 to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
 uses
 Shibboleth.

 Tim


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
 reverse
 proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
 tons
 of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get working
 properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
 EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
 does
 (rather than improving access to their resources).

 Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
 widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
 I
 think there is a lot of truth to that.

 -Ross.


 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee kyle.baner...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
 download,
 with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
 administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
 systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
 also
 has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
 pasted
 and work the majority of the time.

 To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
 packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
 maintain,
 and
 the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
 conf.d
 files.

 This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
 You
 just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
 experience
 in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
 minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes accessing
 the
 more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.

 kyle



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)



 --
 Tim McGeary
 timmcge...@gmail.com
 GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
 484-294-7660 (cell)


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-31 Thread Roy Tennant
When it comes to hedging bets, I'd sure rather hedge my $50,000 bet than my
$500 one. Just sayin'.
Roy


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:04 PM, BWS Johnson abesottedphoe...@yahoo.comwrote:

 Salvete!

   Tisn't necessarily Socialist to hedge one's bets. Look at what Wall
 St. experts advise when one is unsure of whether to hold or sell. Monopoly
 is only ever in the interest of those that hold it.

Short term the aquarium is enticing, but do you enjoy your
 collapsed dorsal fin?

 Cheers,
 Brooke

 --
 On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 6:10 PM EST Salazar, Christina wrote:

 I think though that razor thin budgets aside, the EZProxy using community
 is vulnerable to what amounts to a monopoly. Don't get any ideas, OCLC
 peeps (just kiddin') but now we're so captive to EZProxy, what are our
 options if OCLC wants to gradually (or not so gradually) jack up the price?
 
 Does being this captive to a single product justify community developer
 time?
 
 I think so but I'm probably just a damn socialist.
 
 On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Even with razor thin budgets, this is a no brainer.  May they need
 decide
  between buying 10 new books or license EZProxy?  Possibly, but if they
 have
  a need for EZProxy, that's still a no brainer - until a solid OSS
  replacement that includes as robust a developer /support community comes
  around.  But again, at $500/year, I don't see a lot of incentive to
 invest
  in such a project.
 
 
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com
 wrote:
 
  But there are places on a razor thin budget, and things like this throw
  them off ball acne
 
  Sent from my iPhone
 
  On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Tim McGeary timmcge...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  So what's the price point that EZProxy needs to climb to make it more
  realistic to put resources into an alternative.  At $500/year, I don't
  even
  have to think about justifying it.  At 1% (or less) of the cost of
  position
  with little to no prior experience needed, it doesn't make a lot of
 sense
  to invest in an open source alternative, even on a campus that heavily
  uses
  Shibboleth.
 
  Tim
 
 
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  Not only that, but it's also expressly designed for the purpose of
  reverse
  proxying subscription databases in a library environment.  There are
  tons
  of things vendors do that would be incredibly frustrating to get
 working
  properly in Squid, nginx, or Apache that have already been solved by
  EZProxy.  Which is self-fulfilling: vendors then cater to what EZProxy
  does
  (rather than improving access to their resources).
 
  Art Rhyno used to say that the major thing that was inhibiting the
  widespread adoption of Shibboleth was how simple and cheap EZProxy was.
  I
  think there is a lot of truth to that.
 
  -Ross.
 
 
  On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kyle Banerjee 
 kyle.baner...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  EZproxy is a self-installing statically compiled single binary
  download,
  with a built-in administrative interface that makes most common
  administrative tasks point-and-click, that works on Linux and Windows
  systems, and requires very little in the way of resources to run.  It
  also
  has a library of a few hundred vendor stanzas that can be copied and
  pasted
  and work the majority of the time.
 
  To successfully replace EZproxy in this setting, it would need to be
  packaged in such a way that it is equally easy to install and
  maintain,
  and
  the library of vendor stanzas would need to be developed as apache
  conf.d
  files.
 
  This. The real gain with EZProxy is that configuring it is crazy easy.
  You
  just drop it in and run it -- it's feasible for someone with no
  experience
  in proxying or systems administration to get it operational in a few
  minutes. That is why I think virtualizing a system that makes
 accessing
  the
  more powerful features of EZProxy easy is a good alternative.
 
  kyle
 
 
 
  --
  Tim McGeary
  timmcge...@gmail.com
  GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
  484-294-7660 (cell)
 
 
 
  --
  Tim McGeary
  timmcge...@gmail.com
  GTalk/Yahoo/Skype/Twitter: timmcgeary
  484-294-7660 (cell)



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Ingraham Dwyer, Andy
OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of US$495 
to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the fee 
depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no longer 
offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about pricing 
for other parts of the world.

An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have purchased 
under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC has even 
released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available to current 
license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 2014, and made 
that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates after that version 
are only available to holders of the yearly subscription.  The hosted product 
is updated to the most current version automatically.

My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change it.  
Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the old 
license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are no 
world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There is 
speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I haven't 
heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a change, either to 
the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some as-yet-undetermined 
alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for updates you don't need.

-Andy

 

Andy Ingraham Dwyer
Infrastructure Specialist
State Library of Ohio
274 E. 1st Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
library.ohio.gov


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of stuart 
yeates
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

I probably should have been more specific.

Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y looked 
like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

I'm aware of this good article:
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

cheers
stuart


On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy, 
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to 
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Richard Sarvas
What about using some of the open source WSO2 products to mimic the same 
functionality as EZProxy? This sounds like a task that Enterprise Service Bus 
combined (ESB) with Identity Server (IS) could do. Most of their products are 
some version of an Apache project or other wrapped up in a common user 
interface.

http://wso2.com/products/

They're free, so the price is right.


Rick

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Riley 
Childs
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:13 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

What about CAS, it has some proxy component...I think.

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:11 PM, tmccanna tmcca...@georgialibraries.org 
 wrote:

 Ditto to Andreas.


 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

 div Original message /divdivFrom: Andreas 
 Orphanides akorp...@ncsu.edu /divdivDate:01/28/2014  9:29 PM  
 (GMT-05:00) /divdivTo: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU 
 /divdivSubject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ? 
 /divdiv /divThat's simple for the techs, but VPNs can be a royal pain 
 in the keester if you're an end-user, for a variety of reasons. It should be 
 incumbent on us as information specialists to unburden the user to the extent 
 possible.


 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Addison 
 addi...@library.umass.eduwrote:

 Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish 
 rules with ezproxy in mind.

 The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and 
 require people to use that.

 Aaron


 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
 wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which
 will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to 
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread stuart yeates
The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to 
support management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages 
towards the hosted solution.


Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the 
network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which 
puts an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network 
connections.


cheers
stuart

On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:

OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of US$495 
to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the fee 
depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no longer 
offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about pricing 
for other parts of the world.

An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have purchased 
under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC has even 
released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available to current 
license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 2014, and made 
that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates after that version 
are only available to holders of the yearly subscription.  The hosted product 
is updated to the most current version automatically.

My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change it.  
Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the old 
license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are no 
world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There is 
speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I haven't 
heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a change, either to 
the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some as-yet-undetermined 
alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for updates you don't need.

-Andy



Andy Ingraham Dwyer
Infrastructure Specialist
State Library of Ohio
274 E. 1st Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
library.ohio.gov


-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of stuart 
yeates
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

I probably should have been more specific.

Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y looked like A; 
after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

I'm aware of this good article:
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

cheers
stuart


On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:

We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

What are the alternatives?

cheers
stuart



--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/




--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Margo Duncan
Would you *have* to be hosted? We're in a rural part of the USA and network 
connections from here to anywhere aren't great, so we try to host most 
everything we can.  EZProxy really is EZ to host yourself.

Margo

-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of stuart 
yeates
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:40 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to support 
management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages towards the hosted 
solution.

Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the network 
connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which puts an extra 
trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network connections.

cheers
stuart

On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
 OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
 America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of 
 US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the 
 fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no 
 longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about 
 pricing for other parts of the world.

 An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
 terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have 
 purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC 
 has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available 
 to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 
 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates 
 after that version are only available to holders of the yearly subscription.  
 The hosted product is updated to the most current version automatically.

 My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change 
 it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the 
 old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are 
 no world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There is 
 speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I haven't 
 heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a change, either 
 to the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some as-yet-undetermined 
 alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for updates you don't 
 need.

 -Andy



 Andy Ingraham Dwyer
 Infrastructure Specialist
 State Library of Ohio
 274 E. 1st Avenue
 Columbus, OH 43201
 library.ohio.gov


 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf 
 Of stuart yeates
 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

 I probably should have been more specific.

 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y looked 
 like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

 cheers
 stuart


 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy, 
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to 
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/



--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Cary Gordon
EZProxy is not a very challenging service to setup or run. You could set it up 
locally or pick one of the many cloud hosting providers in NZ, including IBM.

We manage an EZProxy server for a library cooperative in Northern California on 
a small AWS instance. Its average load level is bored.

Cary

On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:39 AM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to support 
 management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages towards the 
 hosted solution.
 
 Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the 
 network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which puts 
 an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network connections.
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
 OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
 America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of 
 US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the 
 fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no 
 longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about 
 pricing for other parts of the world.
 
 An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
 terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have 
 purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC 
 has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available 
 to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 
 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates 
 after that version are only available to holders of the yearly subscription. 
  The hosted product is updated to the most current version automatically.
 
 My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change 
 it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the 
 old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are 
 no world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There 
 is speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I 
 haven't heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a change, 
 either to the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some 
 as-yet-undetermined alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for 
 updates you don't need.
 
 -Andy
 
 
 
 Andy Ingraham Dwyer
 Infrastructure Specialist
 State Library of Ohio
 274 E. 1st Avenue
 Columbus, OH 43201
 library.ohio.gov
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
 stuart yeates
 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?
 
 I probably should have been more specific.
 
 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?
 
 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?
 
 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y looked 
 like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?
 
 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 
 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.
 
 What are the alternatives?
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
 
 
 
 -- 
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Riley Childs
If you ask nicely they would likely place it where you want, I would ;)

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Cary Gordon listu...@chillco.com wrote:

 EZProxy is not a very challenging service to setup or run. You could set it 
 up locally or pick one of the many cloud hosting providers in NZ, including 
 IBM.

 We manage an EZProxy server for a library cooperative in Northern California 
 on a small AWS instance. Its average load level is bored.

 Cary

 On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:39 AM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to support 
 management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages towards the 
 hosted solution.

 Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the 
 network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which 
 puts an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network 
 connections.

 cheers
 stuart

 On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
 OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
 America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of 
 US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the 
 fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no 
 longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about 
 pricing for other parts of the world.

 An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change 
 the terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have 
 purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC 
 has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are 
 available to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early 
 January 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all 
 updates after that version are only available to holders of the yearly 
 subscription.  The hosted product is updated to the most current version 
 automatically.

 My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change 
 it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under 
 the old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there 
 are no world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  
 There is speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, 
 but I haven't heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a 
 change, either to the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some 
 as-yet-undetermined alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for 
 updates you don't need.

 -Andy



 Andy Ingraham Dwyer
 Infrastructure Specialist
 State Library of Ohio
 274 E. 1st Avenue
 Columbus, OH 43201
 library.ohio.gov


 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
 stuart yeates
 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

 I probably should have been more specific.

 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y 
 looked like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

 cheers
 stuart


 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread David Friggens
The subscription fee for Australia and New Zealand is AU$600
(excluding GST) per year.

They say: Our 2014 releases will concentrate on IPV6 and reporting
capabilities.
I've just discovered that we're currently running 5.1c, which was
released in 2009. So perhaps we'll be able to survive on 5.7 for a
while? :-)

David


On 30 January 2014 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy adw...@library.ohio.gov wrote:
 OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
 America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of 
 US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the 
 fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no 
 longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about 
 pricing for other parts of the world.

 An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
 terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have 
 purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC 
 has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available 
 to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 
 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates 
 after that version are only available to holders of the yearly subscription.  
 The hosted product is updated to the most current version automatically.

 My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change 
 it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the 
 old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are 
 no world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There is 
 speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I haven't 
 heard anything official.  Start planning and budgeting for a change, either 
 to the yearly fee, or the cost of hosted, or to some as-yet-undetermined 
 alternative.  But I see no need to start paying now for updates you don't 
 need.

 -Andy



 Andy Ingraham Dwyer
 Infrastructure Specialist
 State Library of Ohio
 274 E. 1st Avenue
 Columbus, OH 43201
 library.ohio.gov


 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
 stuart yeates
 Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:03 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

 I probably should have been more specific.

 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y looked 
 like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

 cheers
 stuart


 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Andrew Anderson
 for testing:

Location “/badpath”
ProxyHTMLEnable Off
SetOutputFilter INFLATE;dummy-html-to-plain
ExtFilterOptions LogStdErr Onfail=remove
/Location
ExtFilterDefine dummy-html-to-plain mode=output intype=text/html 
outtype=text/plain cmd=“/bin/cat -“

So what’s currently missing in the Apache HTTPd solution?

- Services that use an authentication token (predominantly ebook vendors) need 
special support written.  I have been entertaining using mod_lua for this to 
make this support relatively easy for someone who is not hard-core technical to 
maintain.

- Services that are not IP authenticated, but use one of the Form-based 
authentication variants.  I suspect that an approach that injects a script tag 
into the page pointing to javascript that handles the form fill/submission 
might be a sane approach here.  This should also cleanly deal with the ASP.net 
abominations that use __PAGESTATE to store sessions client-side instead of 
server-side.

- EZproxy’s built-in DNS server (enabled with the “DNS” directive) would need 
to be handled using a separate DNS server (there are several options to choose 
from).

- In this setup, standard systems-level management and reporting tools would be 
used instead of the /admin interface in EZproxy

- In this setup, the functionality of the EZproxy /menu URL would need to be 
handled externally.  This may not be a real issue, as many academic sites 
already use LMS or portal systems instead of the EZproxy to direct students to 
resources, so this feature may not be as critical to replicate.

- And of course, extensive testing.  While the above ProQuest stanza works for 
the main ProQuest search interface, it won’t work for everyone, everywhere just 
yet.

Bottom line: Yes, Apache HTTPd is a viable EZproxy alternative if you have a 
system administrator who knows their way around Apache HTTPd, and are willing 
to spend some time getting to know your vendor services intimately.

All of this testing was done on Fedora 19 for the 2.4 version of HTTPd, which 
should be available in RHEL7/CentOS7 soon, so about the time that hard 
decisions are to be made regarding EZproxy vs something else, that something 
else may very well be Apache HTTPd with vendor-specific configuration files.

-- 
Andrew Anderson, Director of Development, Library and Information Resources 
Network, Inc.
http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes | 
http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

On Jan 29, 2014, at 14:42, Margo Duncan mdun...@uttyler.edu wrote:

 Would you *have* to be hosted? We're in a rural part of the USA and network 
 connections from here to anywhere aren't great, so we try to host most 
 everything we can.  EZProxy really is EZ to host yourself.
 
 Margo
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of 
 stuart yeates
 Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:40 PM
 To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
 Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?
 
 The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to support 
 management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages towards the 
 hosted solution.
 
 Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the 
 network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which puts 
 an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network connections.
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
 OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for North 
 America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase of 
 US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with the 
 fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license is no 
 longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details about 
 pricing for other parts of the world.
 
 An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally change the 
 terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you have 
 purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.  OCLC 
 has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are available 
 to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early January 
 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all updates 
 after that version are only available to holders of the yearly subscription. 
  The hosted product is updated to the most current version automatically.
 
 My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't change 
 it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available under the 
 old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point, there are 
 no world-changing new features that have been added to the product.  There 
 is speculation that IPv6 support will be the next big feature-add, but I 
 haven't heard anything official.  Start

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread stuart yeates

Thank you Andrew, that is insanely useful.

cheers
stuart

On 30/01/14 12:00, Andrew Anderson wrote:

When OCLC first announced their purchase of EZproxy, we started a low priority 
research project to see what the alternatives were a few years ago, and what it 
would take to bring them into a production ready state.  The two open source 
solutions we evaluated were Squid and Apache HTTPd.  We considered other 
options (e.g. Apache Traffic Server), but limited the research to these two 
pieces of software since they are already widely used and familiar to most 
system administrators.

Long story short, Squid did not support URL rewriting in a way that we felt 
would be able to be supported well, between requiring patches to the core C++ 
server code, or an external rewriting processes, or an ICAP server 
implementation.  Some of that has improved a bit since the original evaluation, 
but the built-in support for URL rewriting may still need some time to mature.  
Another aspect of Squid that did not seem to be a good fit was that it is 
somewhat limited in its authentication mechanisms vs Apache HTTPd.

So we moved on to evaluating Apache HTTPd with the mod_proxy family of modules. 
 While Apache HTTPd does not support the advanced cache federation features as 
Squid, it has grown to be a robust proxy solution in its own right, and the 2.4 
release appears to have all of the required pieces out of the box, with the 
mod_proxy_html module functionality.  In addition to basic URL rewriting 
support, you get full HTTP protocol support, mature IPv6 support, GZIP support, 
just about any authentication mechanism you need, a server that you can 
self-host content with easily, as well as a built-in HTTP object cache.

How would it work?

Here’s the current EZproxy stanza for ProQuest:

HTTPHeader X-Requested-With
HTTPHeader Accept-Encoding
Title ProQuest
URL http://search.proquest.com/ip
DJ proquest.com
HJ gateway.proquest.com
DJ umi.com
HJ fedsearch.proquest.com
HJ literature.proquest.com
DJ conquest-leg-insight.com
DJ conquestsystems.com
DJ m.search.proquest.com
DJ media.proquest.com
NeverProxy order.proquest.com
NeverProxy rss.proquest.com

Here’s an Apache HTTPd configuration using ProQuest that accomplishes much of 
the same functionality for the main search.proquest.com interface:

VirtualHost _default_:80
  ServerName search.proquest.com.fqdn

  ProxyRequests Off
  ProxyVia On

  RewriteEngine On
  RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://search.proquest.com/$1 [P]

  Location “/“
   AllowMethods GET POST OPTIONS
   ProxyPassReverse http://search.proquest.com/
   ProxyPassReverseCookieDomain search.proquest.com search.proquest.com.fqdn
   CacheEnable disk
   SetOutputFilter INFLATE;DEFLATE
   Header Append Vary User-Agent env=!dont-vary
   # Put Authentication directives here
   ErrorDocument 401 /path/to/login
   Require Valid-User
  /Location
/virtualHost

A few notes on this:

- There is no need for NeverProxy: if you do not define a VirtualHost for the 
hostname, it is not proxied.  So instead of HJ and DJ lines, you add a new 
VirtualHost block for each hostname that needs to be proxied.  The astute will 
ask “what about services that have dozens or hundreds of host entries, like 
Sage?”  Those can be handled by the ProxyExpress features in Apache HTTPd.

- There is no need for HTTPHeader: since Apache HTTPd is a full HTTP 
proxy/server, it supports all HTTP headers natively.

- Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are not needed, and some 
are legacy hostnames that are no longer used by the vendor

- Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are for CDN hosted content 
that requires no special access (e.g. JavaScript/CSS/graphics assets that make 
up the vendor’s user interface).  Another example: how many of you have “DJ 
google.com” in one of your stanzas? Now how many of you registered your IP 
addresses with Google in any way?  Outside of Google Scholar, I suspect the 
answer to those questions are “nearly everyone” and “nearly no one”, 
respectively.

- Some of the hostnames are for things that no sane person would do: How many 
people run their discovery services through their EZproxy server vs. 
authenticating their discovery platform by IP address with vendors directly?

- Something that this configuration does that EZproxy does not do is enable 
object caching.  This can easily save 30-50% of your upstream bandwidth usage 
(Proxy/ProxySSL in EZproxy can achieve the same result with an external caching 
proxy server).

- More complex vendor platforms (e.g. Gale Cengage) need ProxyHTML directives 
and ProxyHTMLURLMap configured, and multiple VirtualHost sections to get them 
fully working.  These can be a little fun to get working initially.

- Some services need redirects edited to work correctly, and not break out of 
the proxy:

Header edit Location http://vendor/ http://vendor.fqdn/

- Some vendors send wrong HTTP headers for the MIME type, and mod_proxy_html 
exposes this 

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Shirley Lincicum
 headers for the MIME type, and
 mod_proxy_html exposes this in some cases as it rewrites the page.  There
 may be a better way to do this, but this is what I threw together for
 testing:

 Location /badpath
 ProxyHTMLEnable Off
 SetOutputFilter INFLATE;dummy-html-to-plain
 ExtFilterOptions LogStdErr Onfail=remove
 /Location
 ExtFilterDefine dummy-html-to-plain mode=output intype=text/html
 outtype=text/plain cmd=/bin/cat -

 So what's currently missing in the Apache HTTPd solution?

 - Services that use an authentication token (predominantly ebook vendors)
 need special support written.  I have been entertaining using mod_lua for
 this to make this support relatively easy for someone who is not hard-core
 technical to maintain.

 - Services that are not IP authenticated, but use one of the Form-based
 authentication variants.  I suspect that an approach that injects a script
 tag into the page pointing to javascript that handles the form
 fill/submission might be a sane approach here.  This should also cleanly
 deal with the ASP.net abominations that use __PAGESTATE to store sessions
 client-side instead of server-side.

 - EZproxy's built-in DNS server (enabled with the DNS directive) would
 need to be handled using a separate DNS server (there are several options
 to choose from).

 - In this setup, standard systems-level management and reporting tools
 would be used instead of the /admin interface in EZproxy

 - In this setup, the functionality of the EZproxy /menu URL would need to
 be handled externally.  This may not be a real issue, as many academic
 sites already use LMS or portal systems instead of the EZproxy to direct
 students to resources, so this feature may not be as critical to replicate.

 - And of course, extensive testing.  While the above ProQuest stanza works
 for the main ProQuest search interface, it won't work for everyone,
 everywhere just yet.

 Bottom line: Yes, Apache HTTPd is a viable EZproxy alternative if you have
 a system administrator who knows their way around Apache HTTPd, and are
 willing to spend some time getting to know your vendor services intimately.

 All of this testing was done on Fedora 19 for the 2.4 version of HTTPd,
 which should be available in RHEL7/CentOS7 soon, so about the time that
 hard decisions are to be made regarding EZproxy vs something else, that
 something else may very well be Apache HTTPd with vendor-specific
 configuration files.

 --
 Andrew Anderson, Director of Development, Library and Information
 Resources Network, Inc.
 http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes |
 http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

 On Jan 29, 2014, at 14:42, Margo Duncan mdun...@uttyler.edu wrote:

  Would you *have* to be hosted? We're in a rural part of the USA and
 network connections from here to anywhere aren't great, so we try to host
 most everything we can.  EZProxy really is EZ to host yourself.
 
  Margo
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
 stuart yeates
  Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:40 PM
  To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
  Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?
 
  The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to
 support management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages
 towards the hosted solution.
 
  Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the
 network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which
 puts an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network
 connections.
 
  cheers
  stuart
 
  On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
  OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for
 North America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase
 of US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with
 the fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license
 is no longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details
 about pricing for other parts of the world.
 
  An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally
 change the terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you
 have purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.
  OCLC has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are
 available to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early
 January 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all
 updates after that version are only available to holders of the yearly
 subscription.  The hosted product is updated to the most current version
 automatically.
 
  My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't
 change it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available
 under the old license, and use that for as long as you can.  At this point,
 there are no world-changing

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Ross Singer
:

 Header edit Location http://vendor/ http://vendor.fqdn/

 - Some vendors send wrong HTTP headers for the MIME type, and
 mod_proxy_html exposes this in some cases as it rewrites the page.  There
 may be a better way to do this, but this is what I threw together for
 testing:

 Location /badpath
 ProxyHTMLEnable Off
 SetOutputFilter INFLATE;dummy-html-to-plain
 ExtFilterOptions LogStdErr Onfail=remove
 /Location
 ExtFilterDefine dummy-html-to-plain mode=output intype=text/html
 outtype=text/plain cmd=/bin/cat -

 So what's currently missing in the Apache HTTPd solution?

 - Services that use an authentication token (predominantly ebook vendors)
 need special support written.  I have been entertaining using mod_lua for
 this to make this support relatively easy for someone who is not hard-core
 technical to maintain.

 - Services that are not IP authenticated, but use one of the Form-based
 authentication variants.  I suspect that an approach that injects a script
 tag into the page pointing to javascript that handles the form
 fill/submission might be a sane approach here.  This should also cleanly
 deal with the ASP.net abominations that use __PAGESTATE to store sessions
 client-side instead of server-side.

 - EZproxy's built-in DNS server (enabled with the DNS directive) would
 need to be handled using a separate DNS server (there are several options
 to choose from).

 - In this setup, standard systems-level management and reporting tools
 would be used instead of the /admin interface in EZproxy

 - In this setup, the functionality of the EZproxy /menu URL would need to
 be handled externally.  This may not be a real issue, as many academic
 sites already use LMS or portal systems instead of the EZproxy to direct
 students to resources, so this feature may not be as critical to replicate.

 - And of course, extensive testing.  While the above ProQuest stanza works
 for the main ProQuest search interface, it won't work for everyone,
 everywhere just yet.

 Bottom line: Yes, Apache HTTPd is a viable EZproxy alternative if you have
 a system administrator who knows their way around Apache HTTPd, and are
 willing to spend some time getting to know your vendor services intimately.

 All of this testing was done on Fedora 19 for the 2.4 version of HTTPd,
 which should be available in RHEL7/CentOS7 soon, so about the time that
 hard decisions are to be made regarding EZproxy vs something else, that
 something else may very well be Apache HTTPd with vendor-specific
 configuration files.

 --
 Andrew Anderson, Director of Development, Library and Information
 Resources Network, Inc.
 http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes |
 http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes

 On Jan 29, 2014, at 14:42, Margo Duncan mdun...@uttyler.edu wrote:

  Would you *have* to be hosted? We're in a rural part of the USA and
 network connections from here to anywhere aren't great, so we try to host
 most everything we can.  EZProxy really is EZ to host yourself.
 
  Margo
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of
 stuart yeates
  Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:40 PM
  To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
  Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?
 
  The text I've seen talks about [e]xpanded reporting capabilities to
 support management decisions in forthcoming versions and encourages
 towards the hosted solution.
 
  Since we're in .nz, they'd put our hosted proxy server in .au, but the
 network connection between .nz and .au is via the continental .us, which
 puts an extra trans-pacific network loop in 99% of our proxied network
 connections.
 
  cheers
  stuart
 
  On 30/01/14 03:14, Ingraham Dwyer, Andy wrote:
  OCLC announced in April 2013 the changes in their license model for
 North America.  EZProxy's license moves from requiring a one-time purchase
 of US$495 to a *annual* fee of $495, or through their hosted service, with
 the fee depending on scale of service.  The old one-time purchase license
 is no longer offered for sale as of July 1, 2013.  I don't have any details
 about pricing for other parts of the world.
 
  An important thing to recognize here, is that they cannot legally
 change the terms of a license that is already in effect.  The software you
 have purchased under the old license is still yours to use, indefinitely.
  OCLC has even released several maintenance updates during 2013 that are
 available to current license-holders.  In fact, they released V5.7 in early
 January 2014, and made that available to all license-holders.  However, all
 updates after that version are only available to holders of the yearly
 subscription.  The hosted product is updated to the most current version
 automatically.
 
  My recommendation is:  If your installation of EZProxy works, don't
 change it.  Yet.  Upgrade your installation to the last version available
 under

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Scott Prater
I second Stuart's kudos. Replacing EZProxy with an Apache proxy sounds just 
crazy enough to be brilliant. I could see an open source recipe book taking 
shape: how to accomplish EZProxy functions using Apache modules and their 
directives. I think that might end up being more useful than yet another 
standalone proxy application.

-- Scott
On 01/29/14, stuart yeates wrote:
 Thank you Andrew, that is insanely useful.
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 On 30/01/14 12:00, Andrew Anderson wrote:
 When OCLC first announced their purchase of EZproxy, we started a low 
 priority research project to see what the alternatives were a few years ago, 
 and what it would take to bring them into a production ready state. The two 
 open source solutions we evaluated were Squid and Apache HTTPd. We 
 considered other options (e.g. Apache Traffic Server), but limited the 
 research to these two pieces of software since they are already widely used 
 and familiar to most system administrators.
 
 Long story short, Squid did not support URL rewriting in a way that we felt 
 would be able to be supported well, between requiring patches to the core 
 C++ server code, or an external rewriting processes, or an ICAP server 
 implementation. Some of that has improved a bit since the original 
 evaluation, but the built-in support for URL rewriting may still need some 
 time to mature. Another aspect of Squid that did not seem to be a good fit 
 was that it is somewhat limited in its authentication mechanisms vs Apache 
 HTTPd.
 
 So we moved on to evaluating Apache HTTPd with the mod_proxy family of 
 modules. While Apache HTTPd does not support the advanced cache federation 
 features as Squid, it has grown to be a robust proxy solution in its own 
 right, and the 2.4 release appears to have all of the required pieces out of 
 the box, with the mod_proxy_html module functionality. In addition to basic 
 URL rewriting support, you get full HTTP protocol support, mature IPv6 
 support, GZIP support, just about any authentication mechanism you need, a 
 server that you can self-host content with easily, as well as a built-in 
 HTTP object cache.
 
 How would it work?
 
 Here’s the current EZproxy stanza for ProQuest:
 
 HTTPHeader X-Requested-With
 HTTPHeader Accept-Encoding
 Title ProQuest
 URL http://search.proquest.com/ip
 DJ proquest.com
 HJ gateway.proquest.com
 DJ umi.com
 HJ fedsearch.proquest.com
 HJ literature.proquest.com
 DJ conquest-leg-insight.com
 DJ conquestsystems.com
 DJ m.search.proquest.com
 DJ media.proquest.com
 NeverProxy order.proquest.com
 NeverProxy rss.proquest.com
 
 Here’s an Apache HTTPd configuration using ProQuest that accomplishes much 
 of the same functionality for the main search.proquest.com interface:
 
 VirtualHost _default_:80
  ServerName search.proquest.com.fqdn
 
  ProxyRequests Off
  ProxyVia On
 
  RewriteEngine On
  RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://search.proquest.com/$1 [P]
 
  Location “/“
  AllowMethods GET POST OPTIONS
  ProxyPassReverse http://search.proquest.com/
  ProxyPassReverseCookieDomain search.proquest.com search.proquest.com.fqdn
  CacheEnable disk
  SetOutputFilter INFLATE;DEFLATE
  Header Append Vary User-Agent env=!dont-vary
  # Put Authentication directives here
  ErrorDocument 401 /path/to/login
  Require Valid-User
  /Location
 /virtualHost
 
 A few notes on this:
 
 - There is no need for NeverProxy: if you do not define a VirtualHost for 
 the hostname, it is not proxied. So instead of HJ and DJ lines, you add a 
 new VirtualHost block for each hostname that needs to be proxied. The astute 
 will ask “what about services that have dozens or hundreds of host entries, 
 like Sage?” Those can be handled by the ProxyExpress features in Apache 
 HTTPd.
 
 - There is no need for HTTPHeader: since Apache HTTPd is a full HTTP 
 proxy/server, it supports all HTTP headers natively.
 
 - Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are not needed, and some 
 are legacy hostnames that are no longer used by the vendor
 
 - Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are for CDN hosted 
 content that requires no special access (e.g. JavaScript/CSS/graphics assets 
 that make up the vendor’s user interface). Another example: how many of you 
 have “DJ google.com” in one of your stanzas? Now how many of you registered 
 your IP addresses with Google in any way? Outside of Google Scholar, I 
 suspect the answer to those questions are “nearly everyone” and “nearly no 
 one”, respectively.
 
 - Some of the hostnames are for things that no sane person would do: How 
 many people run their discovery services through their EZproxy server vs. 
 authenticating their discovery platform by IP address with vendors directly?
 
 - Something that this configuration does that EZproxy does not do is enable 
 object caching. This can easily save 30-50% of your upstream bandwidth usage 
 (Proxy/ProxySSL in EZproxy can achieve the same result with an external 
 caching proxy server).
 
 - More complex vendor 

Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-29 Thread Riley Childs
Well I think there are acctually working solutions if you Google EZProxy squid 
you find tons of people who have cobbled together solutions, you just need the 
best pieces together to make it work! Who wants to start the GitHub repo?

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Scott Prater pra...@wisc.edu wrote:

 I second Stuart's kudos. Replacing EZProxy with an Apache proxy sounds just 
 crazy enough to be brilliant. I could see an open source recipe book taking 
 shape: how to accomplish EZProxy functions using Apache modules and their 
 directives. I think that might end up being more useful than yet another 
 standalone proxy application.

 -- Scott
 On 01/29/14, stuart yeates wrote:
 Thank you Andrew, that is insanely useful.

 cheers
 stuart

 On 30/01/14 12:00, Andrew Anderson wrote:
 When OCLC first announced their purchase of EZproxy, we started a low 
 priority research project to see what the alternatives were a few years 
 ago, and what it would take to bring them into a production ready state. 
 The two open source solutions we evaluated were Squid and Apache HTTPd. We 
 considered other options (e.g. Apache Traffic Server), but limited the 
 research to these two pieces of software since they are already widely used 
 and familiar to most system administrators.

 Long story short, Squid did not support URL rewriting in a way that we felt 
 would be able to be supported well, between requiring patches to the core 
 C++ server code, or an external rewriting processes, or an ICAP server 
 implementation. Some of that has improved a bit since the original 
 evaluation, but the built-in support for URL rewriting may still need some 
 time to mature. Another aspect of Squid that did not seem to be a good fit 
 was that it is somewhat limited in its authentication mechanisms vs Apache 
 HTTPd.

 So we moved on to evaluating Apache HTTPd with the mod_proxy family of 
 modules. While Apache HTTPd does not support the advanced cache federation 
 features as Squid, it has grown to be a robust proxy solution in its own 
 right, and the 2.4 release appears to have all of the required pieces out 
 of the box, with the mod_proxy_html module functionality. In addition to 
 basic URL rewriting support, you get full HTTP protocol support, mature 
 IPv6 support, GZIP support, just about any authentication mechanism you 
 need, a server that you can self-host content with easily, as well as a 
 built-in HTTP object cache.

 How would it work?

 Here’s the current EZproxy stanza for ProQuest:

 HTTPHeader X-Requested-With
 HTTPHeader Accept-Encoding
 Title ProQuest
 URL http://search.proquest.com/ip
 DJ proquest.com
 HJ gateway.proquest.com
 DJ umi.com
 HJ fedsearch.proquest.com
 HJ literature.proquest.com
 DJ conquest-leg-insight.com
 DJ conquestsystems.com
 DJ m.search.proquest.com
 DJ media.proquest.com
 NeverProxy order.proquest.com
 NeverProxy rss.proquest.com

 Here’s an Apache HTTPd configuration using ProQuest that accomplishes much 
 of the same functionality for the main search.proquest.com interface:

 VirtualHost _default_:80
 ServerName search.proquest.com.fqdn

 ProxyRequests Off
 ProxyVia On

 RewriteEngine On
 RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://search.proquest.com/$1 [P]

 Location “/“
 AllowMethods GET POST OPTIONS
 ProxyPassReverse http://search.proquest.com/
 ProxyPassReverseCookieDomain search.proquest.com search.proquest.com.fqdn
 CacheEnable disk
 SetOutputFilter INFLATE;DEFLATE
 Header Append Vary User-Agent env=!dont-vary
 # Put Authentication directives here
 ErrorDocument 401 /path/to/login
 Require Valid-User
 /Location
 /virtualHost

 A few notes on this:

 - There is no need for NeverProxy: if you do not define a VirtualHost for 
 the hostname, it is not proxied. So instead of HJ and DJ lines, you add a 
 new VirtualHost block for each hostname that needs to be proxied. The 
 astute will ask “what about services that have dozens or hundreds of host 
 entries, like Sage?” Those can be handled by the ProxyExpress features in 
 Apache HTTPd.

 - There is no need for HTTPHeader: since Apache HTTPd is a full HTTP 
 proxy/server, it supports all HTTP headers natively.

 - Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are not needed, and 
 some are legacy hostnames that are no longer used by the vendor

 - Some of the hostnames that are in EZproxy stanzas are for CDN hosted 
 content that requires no special access (e.g. JavaScript/CSS/graphics 
 assets that make up the vendor’s user interface). Another example: how many 
 of you have “DJ google.com” in one of your stanzas? Now how many of you 
 registered your IP addresses with Google in any way? Outside of Google 
 Scholar, I suspect the answer to those questions are “nearly everyone” and 
 “nearly no one”, respectively.

 - Some of the hostnames are for things that no sane person would do: How 
 many people run their discovery services through their EZproxy server vs. 
 authenticating their discovery platform by IP address with 

[CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread stuart yeates
We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy, 
which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to 
install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.


What are the alternatives?

cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
Ok, what exactly is EZProxy, I could never figure that out, if I knew I could 
help :)

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:04 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread stuart yeates
EZProxy is a proxy for use with vendors that have products gateway'd by 
IP address. It allows users who are off-campus to access resources that 
are locked down by IP address as though the user was on campus. It does 
deep-packet inspection to write URLs and javascript, facing DNS stuff, etc.


It's a product from OCLC, see http://www.oclc.org/en-US/ezproxy.html

cheers
stuart

On 29/01/14 15:05, Riley Childs wrote:

Ok, what exactly is EZProxy, I could never figure that out, if I knew I could 
help :)

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:04 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

What are the alternatives?

cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/





--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
Did a little research
I think Squid would work, not as a drop in replacement. Same with apache (there 
is a proxy redirect directive...I don't recall it). I haven't tried either 
solution, but they seem to have the same concept, albeit with a little more 
configuration! Good Luck

//Riley

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:04 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Aaron Addison
Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish rules
with ezproxy in mind.

The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and require
people to use that.

Aaron


On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy, which
 will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to install
 locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Andreas Orphanides
That's simple for the techs, but VPNs can be a royal pain in the keester if
you're an end-user, for a variety of reasons. It should be incumbent on us
as information specialists to unburden the user to the extent possible.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Addison addi...@library.umass.eduwrote:

 Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish rules
 with ezproxy in mind.

 The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and require
 people to use that.

 Aaron


 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
 wrote:

  We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which
  will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to install
  locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.
 
  What are the alternatives?
 
  cheers
  stuart
  --
  Stuart Yeates
  Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
 



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
A VPN could be a stopgap while you figure something else out, but yes I agree 
they are a pain for patrons. Plus from a security standpoint I wouldn't want 
patrons VPNing into my network, too many holes.

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Andreas Orphanides akorp...@ncsu.edu wrote:

 That's simple for the techs, but VPNs can be a royal pain in the keester if
 you're an end-user, for a variety of reasons. It should be incumbent on us
 as information specialists to unburden the user to the extent possible.


 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Addison 
 addi...@library.umass.eduwrote:

 Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish rules
 with ezproxy in mind.

 The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and require
 people to use that.

 Aaron


 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
 wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which
 will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to install
 locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread stuart yeates

I probably should have been more specific.

Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y 
looked like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?


I'm aware of this good article:
http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

cheers
stuart


On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:

We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

What are the alternatives?

cheers
stuart



--
Stuart Yeates
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
My solution came from Google, but it was people setting up the solution, from 
what I can tell EZProxy had the market cornered, but Squid should be simple 
enough to setup, and with the coming changes more people in your boat will be 
able to solutionize!

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:40 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:

 I probably should have been more specific.

 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y
 looked like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

 cheers
 stuart


 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Ross Singer
I hate to say it, but Squid will not be simple to get the kind of results 
EZProxy gets.  Shibboleth can take care of a handful (of probably some of your 
larger, more commonly accessed?) resources.  Maybe Squid can take care of the 
rest, but my guess is it's the smaller, more niche resources that are the most 
problematic.

Stuart, can you go into some more detail regarding OCLC's changes?  Is it just 
a massive price hike?  Are they egregious terms of service?

Once upon a time (pre-OCLC), EZProxy was a one-time fee, is that not the case 
anymore?  I mean, can you not just keep running the version you're currently on?

-Ross.

On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com wrote:

 My solution came from Google, but it was people setting up the solution, from 
 what I can tell EZProxy had the market cornered, but Squid should be simple 
 enough to setup, and with the coming changes more people in your boat will be 
 able to solutionize!
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:40 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
 
 I probably should have been more specific.
 
 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?
 
 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?
 
 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y
 looked like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?
 
 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 
 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.
 
 What are the alternatives?
 
 cheers
 stuart
 
 
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
Someone actually has a empty repo on GitHub called freeproxy but that might 
take a while...

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hate to say it, but Squid will not be simple to get the kind of results 
 EZProxy gets.  Shibboleth can take care of a handful (of probably some of 
 your larger, more commonly accessed?) resources.  Maybe Squid can take care 
 of the rest, but my guess is it's the smaller, more niche resources that are 
 the most problematic.

 Stuart, can you go into some more detail regarding OCLC's changes?  Is it 
 just a massive price hike?  Are they egregious terms of service?

 Once upon a time (pre-OCLC), EZProxy was a one-time fee, is that not the case 
 anymore?  I mean, can you not just keep running the version you're currently 
 on?

 -Ross.

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Riley Childs rchi...@cucawarriors.com wrote:

 My solution came from Google, but it was people setting up the solution, 
 from what I can tell EZProxy had the market cornered, but Squid should be 
 simple enough to setup, and with the coming changes more people in your boat 
 will be able to solutionize!

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:40 PM, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz 
 wrote:

 I probably should have been more specific.

 Does anyone have experience switching from EzProxy to anything else?

 Is anyone else aware of the coming OCLC changes and considering switching?

 Does anyone have a worked example like: My EzProxy config for site Y
 looked like A; after the switch, my X config for site Z looked like B?

 I'm aware of this good article:
 http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/7470

 cheers
 stuart


 On 29/01/14 15:24, stuart yeates wrote:
 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to
 install locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart


 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/


Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread tmccanna
Ditto to Andreas.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

div Original message /divdivFrom: Andreas Orphanides 
akorp...@ncsu.edu /divdivDate:01/28/2014  9:29 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
/divdivTo: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU /divdivSubject: Re: [CODE4LIB] 
EZProxy changes / alternatives ? /divdiv
/divThat's simple for the techs, but VPNs can be a royal pain in the keester 
if
you're an end-user, for a variety of reasons. It should be incumbent on us
as information specialists to unburden the user to the extent possible.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Addison addi...@library.umass.eduwrote:

 Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish rules
 with ezproxy in mind.

 The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and require
 people to use that.

 Aaron


 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
 wrote:

  We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which
  will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to install
  locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.
 
  What are the alternatives?
 
  cheers
  stuart
  --
  Stuart Yeates
  Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
 



Re: [CODE4LIB] EZProxy changes / alternatives ?

2014-01-28 Thread Riley Childs
What about CAS, it has some proxy component...I think.

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:11 PM, tmccanna tmcca...@georgialibraries.org 
 wrote:

 Ditto to Andreas.


 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

 div Original message /divdivFrom: Andreas Orphanides 
 akorp...@ncsu.edu /divdivDate:01/28/2014  9:29 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
 /divdivTo: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU /divdivSubject: Re: [CODE4LIB] 
 EZProxy changes / alternatives ? /divdiv
 /divThat's simple for the techs, but VPNs can be a royal pain in the 
 keester if
 you're an end-user, for a variety of reasons. It should be incumbent on us
 as information specialists to unburden the user to the extent possible.


 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Addison 
 addi...@library.umass.eduwrote:

 Some use Squid, its not hard to set up.  But most vendors publish rules
 with ezproxy in mind.

 The other fairly simple solution is to run a VPN for access, and require
 people to use that.

 Aaron


 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, stuart yeates stuart.yea...@vuw.ac.nz
 wrote:

 We've just received notification of forth-coming changes to EZProxy,
 which
 will require us to pay an arm and a leg for future versions to install
 locally and/or host with OCLC AU with a ~ 10,000km round trip.

 What are the alternatives?

 cheers
 stuart
 --
 Stuart Yeates
 Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/