OCLC recently asked EZProxy clients to fill out a survey about their experiences with the product and to get feedback on possible future plans for the product.
About half-way through, I decided it might be a good idea to post my responses. Because hey, if I'm working to help them, I might as well share it with my friends out in the library systems world So here are a few choice quotes from the comments section of the survey...
In response to a question about the "ease of use" of EZProxy
Nothing that requires configuration via a text file can be classed as "easy to use" these days.
When asked why I scored satisfaction lower than the maximum
The sluggishness to adopt current encryption protocols, and the unwillingness to use dynamically linked libraries, is a major black mark against the product.
Rather than "doing the right thing", it appears to be a marketing tactic to encourage adoption of 6.0 by making 5.7 fall behind. That's a disappointing tactic for a library cooperative to use in the world of libraries where security and protection of our patrons privacy is of great importance.
What one thing would I change about EZProxy
I would change the license to be an open source (GPL v3 or Apache 2.0) licence. OCLC could still derive revenue from providing hosted solutions and as the well-known trusted name being the product, but small segments of the community could vet the code and contribute enhancements that meet their needs (that they have been asking for without success for years now).
After being asked about the importance of five possible enhancements, three of which reflected a tighter integration with WorldShare services
(roughly) This is why I don't like the proprietary revenue model for the 6.x series--you're investing the revenue in shoring up your WorldShare offerings with features that are not useful to the customers that do not use the WorldShare platform.