Wow, what a long exchange... The question remains for me: If I begin a big work with a lot of text, is it better to start right now in the 1.3.4., to be shure that it will work in the future 1.3.5.? Is there already some Windows-version avaiable of 1.3.5? And: What will happen with the 1.3.3.9/10 branch: isn't this also dead end, once the 1.3.5. came out? Will 1.3.5. be stable somehow? How long there will be "two" scribus side by side?
Cordialement, Martin Kempf Gregory Pittman a ?crit : > Dr. Werner Popken wrote: > >> I can tell you why I chose to use 1.3.4. >> >> Firstly, you offer it. That is a big mistake in my eyes if you >> strongly advise people to not use it after the fact. I felt like being >> messed around. If this is really your opinion, please take it off. >> Otherwise, don't scold people who use it, rather apaologise for >> tricking them into using it although you strongly disadvise to do so. >> >> >> > Scribus development is much the same as many open source, volunteer > software projects out there. As such, it doesn't operate like a > commercial software product, where releases come in a careful, measured > way, and only in that way. We do see some commercial enterprises > releases beta versions, really much the same as the developmental stuff > you see with Scribus. > >> Secondly, in my opinion, there are two kinds of users of open source >> software: those who only want to profit, and those who want to pay >> back as best they can. I'd like to belong to the second class, if I >> can afford it somehow. Using a new version, reporting bugs is a >> comparably easy way to give back. Hence I was not only confident to be >> able to work with an unstable version, as professional developers >> these days know how to avoid the most obvious problems, but looked >> forward in good faith to be welcomed for sharing my time and effort >> trying to make this version more usable. Instead, I learned that my >> effort is not wanted for, so I turned to 1.3.39 for the next project, >> only to find that I have to get used to a slightly different UI and >> feature set. In the meantime, I have sorted this quite well in my >> head, so I don't get confused that much anymore. >> >> For some years, I worked for a big open source company. We desperately >> looked for people giving new versions a try. We begged people to do >> it, we told them that this is what open source development is about, >> that we could afford to do great things with few manpower just because >> of this. Why did we have to fight this way? Typically, everybody would >> wait until the new version would be declared stable. So there were >> comparably very few people to use the new version, having the chance >> to find bugs. The developers waited for bug reports to come in. After >> some time, those reports ceased to come in, so what could they do? >> They had to declare the new version stable. Now everybody would jump >> to it and find lots of previously undiscoverd bugs, getting very >> angry, very rightly so, as this version just had been declared stable. >> What a disgusting mess! >> >> > I have to say, we see this with Scribus as well. Instability of a > version is always a relative thing, and in fact the day or the week > before a version is declared stable it is nearly identical to what will > soon be the stable version. I think you're approaching this from the > right mindset, but you come to Scribus with a much better understanding > than most users. Overall, I don't think we've suffered so much from not > having users willing to experiment with unstable/development versions. > >> Thirdly, if I take the pain to work my way into a new piece of >> software, I'd like to do it once, not twice. Software tends to evolve, >> but I'd like to get my things done. That's why I prefer to work with >> versions I am familiar with, even if there are newer and more feature >> rich generations out there. In case I don't need those, I would even >> spend time and energy for nothing trying to get as productive with the >> new version as before. This is why many people feel offended by new >> versions of Windows or MS Office or what not. So I'd rather try an >> unstable version with more features even if that version is still >> comparably unstable, as these bug will get fixed the other day. >> >> This is what I thought. The company mentioned worked this way. They >> published often, and told people what changed. If you didn't suffer >> from a bug, you would not need a fix and would not upgrade. If you >> reported a bug, you would get a fix the other day. The next week, >> another version might be out there with some more fixes for the >> general public. >> >> Now I learn that 1.3.4 is a dead end and bugs will not be fixed at >> all. Surprise! Makes me wonder even more why this version is offered >> in the first place. >> >> > 1.3.4 is a dead-end in the sense that bugs are not going to be fixed -- > the 1.3.4 you download today is the same as it was when it was released > back in May. The bugfixes are being applied to 1.3.5svn, which has > mostly the same feature set as 1.3.4, BUT, very importantly is using > QT4, which is not yet a smooth transition from QT3. If 1.3.4 satisfies > your needs, the one thing you can count on is that something that's > working in 1.3.4 now is not going to become broken. > >> Apart from this, I don't complain, but praise the developers and other >> friends of Scribus as best I can. Both versions are excellent >> software! 1.3.4 didn't present any serious problems I couldn't live >> with. I made my first project with it, a threefolded flyer, with all >> there is, text flowing around irregular shapes and so on. I showed it >> professionals at the Frankfurt Book Fair last week and they were >> impressed. >> >> Now I work on two books which will be ready for print this or next >> week (I'm writing an additional chapter right now, so this is not a >> question of Scribus or my concept). I understood that the handling of >> text is better in 1.3.4, so I plan to produce the final pdf file from >> 1.3.4. Is this correct or am I mistaken? >> >> >> > As has been stated, text handling is a lot different in 1.3.4 -- if it > works, use it. Making something in 1.3.3.9 with a lot of text, then > loading into 1.3.4 will likely create quite a bit of reformatting work. > >> By the way, letter handling in 1.3.9 is great anyway, I am not >> proficient enough to see problems, but then I'm not a professional >> typograph, so I just might not be aware of flaws. >> >> Before, I produced books with PHP and fpdf, but the result was ugly. I >> tried LaTeX next, but found that they can't handle illustrations >> easily. After some learning, I am pretty happy with Scribus. >> >> > Great. > > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Scribus mailing list > Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de > http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus > >
