[Scribus] Is 1.3.4 stable enough

mamem at gmx.net mamem
Wed Oct 17 18:29:33 CEST 2007

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 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?

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 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

More information about the scribus mailing list