[Scribus] [+] Re: Is 1.3.4 stable enough

[charles brooks]

I can't understand why someone would complain about a
free product.
Sincerely,
Charles Brooks


--- Julian Robbins <julian.robbins at q-par.com> wrote:

> mamem at gmx.net wrote:
> > 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.?
> >   
> Its always the answer, 'it depends'. I still only
> use 1.3.3.9 for my 
> production work. For only a few pages you will have
> no problems at all. 
> If you want to edit 50 pages you will. 1.3.4 is
> fairly stable, but 
> there  is really no easy ways to go back to 1.3.3.9
> for those files. 
> Make sure you keep a copy in the 1.3.3.9 format
> separately to avoid such 
> problems.
> No, files created in 1.3.4 will always be compatible
> with 1.3.5.
> > Is there already some Windows-version avaiable of
> 1.3.5?
> >   
> I don't think so yet.
> > 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?
> >   
> What you have to remember is that all software
> projects, including 
> commercial ones, run just like this, but you rarely
> see the development 
> versions. 1.3.5 will never be 'stable' as such; it
> will change version 
> number to another (I'm not quite sure what it will
> be !).
> 
> The stable 1.3.3.9/10  series will continue to have
> major bugfixes 
> applied, but to save time, new features and bugs
> which require a lot of 
> time may be patched only in 1.3.5.
> 
> Its confusing because you get to see everything in
> the Open Source 
> world, 'warts and all', the good, the bad, and the
> ugly. But the good 
> thing is you DO get to see whatever you want, and
> have your own choice 
> to use it as you see fit.
> 
> Julian Robbins
> 
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com