[scribus] Scribus bundles (was : ! ;-))

["Sveinn í Felli (IMAP)"]

Hi,

jwminer at accessvt.com wrote:
> I think it's important to get our history straight. There are a
> couple of errors in Joseph Harris's message.
> 
> Joseph wrote:
>> One point (that maybe is already understood), Windows has three
>> active sets of users. 98, Xp and Vista. While Vista is being
>> pushed hard it not not popular with a very large group of Xp
>> users and Xp may remain the main - at least strongly competing -
>> OS at least until Longhorn. 98 users are much less likely to be
>> in the market for scribus, and it is now probably a rump.
>>
>> I am not sure that Longhorn will have more success. Xp solved the
>> stability problem (I understand) and possibly SP3 has made enough
>> improvements. Vista offers another learning curve, and Longhorn
>> will as well. Judgement on this will affect how Windows bundles
>> are planned and executed.
> 
> As has already been posted, "Longhorn" was the development name for
> Windows Vista and its relatives. The next version of Windows has the
> development name of "Windows 7."
> 
> Scribus is not supported under Windows 98, SE, Me, or earlier. It
> requires Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and the
> corresponding server versions. Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5, XP is
> NT 5.1, and Vista is NT 6. The NT versions of Windows have always
> been stable. However, Windows NT up to W2K was geared and marketed
> to business users. It was only with the end of the Win 9x/Me series
> and the arrival of XP that Windows NT became a consumer OS as well
> as business OS.
> 
> SP3 for XP made very few changes. Vista SP 1 made significant
> improvements. The "learning curve" for Vista is no larger than going
> from Win 98 to W2K or XP.
> 
> Vista is liked better than reading talkback sections would lead you
> to believe. Every "regular user" I know who has Vista likes it.
> These people do not read or post in forums and talkback sections. My
> nearly one-year-old laptop came with Vista Home Premium and I had
> read all the negatives, but I went into it with an open mind. I
> haven't had a bit of trouble with Vista, my computer does not run
> slowly, I have never had a Vista system crash, and almost all my
> programs run fine under Vista--and some of those are 16-bit programs
> going back to Win 3.1 days, many Win 95 programs, and even a couple
> of DOS programs. My four printers are all supported under Vista; one
> is a LaserJet 4/4M that I got in early 1993 and one is an Epson
> color inkjet dating back to 2000. My OS usage is about 65% Linux and
> 35% Vista or XP. Many Vista bashers are Mac or Linux fanboys who let
> no opportunity pass to slam Microsoft. Others are people who have
> never used Vista but they've "heard bad things" and have an opinion
> based on hearsay. Some are techies who are driven by geek chic,
> which currently dictates that you must bash Vista. The rest are
> people with legitimate gripes. I *hope* none of them are people who
> upgraded computers with inadequate hardware. It is definitely true
> that Vista requires spiffier hardware than XP, but most computers
> sold now have enough RAM (2 gigs minimum) and processing power. Many
> did not when Vista first came out.
> 
> That said, there's nothing wrong with XP and no compelling reason to
> upgrade from XP. One of my three other computers is fully Vista
> capable, but I don't see myself upgrading it unless I find an
> extraordinary sale on Vista (which I haven't).
> 
> As for the popularity of Scribus, remember that professional-level
> desktop publishing software is NOT for the mass market. It's not so
> much the technical depth of real DTP software as what someone needs
> to know to do respectable DTP. It used to be that people were
> specialists in typesetting or graphics manipulation. Skilled and
> trained specialists set the type and prepared the graphics and a
> trained graphic designer designed and laid out the pages. A
> professional human printer did the color seps, imposition, plates,
> and printing.
> 
> Then came Adobe PostScript and Aldous PageMaker (not
> Quark--PageMaker was first). For the first time, it was possible for
> the design, typesetting, graphics preparation, and final copy to be
> done by one person on a computer. Of course, it was also possible to
> have different people prepare text, set the type, prepare the
> graphics, and deliver the files to the person who brought them into
> the DTP software. Gradually, as expectations changed, budgets
> tightened, and the software became more capable, the whole job
> became more likely to be done by one person.
> 
> Of course, non-professional users saw the usefulness of and
> opportunity in using the computer for things like club newsletters,
> business cards, brochures, posters, and flyers. So lower-level
> software incorporated support for doing this kind of kitchen-table
> DTP. Unfortunately, too many people assumed the computer could make
> up for their own lack of knowledge of type and graphic design. Just
> find a template and add your own stuff. NOT!!! Even worse, many
> users have NO IDEA that graphic design and typography are *skills*
> that should be learned before they churn out ugly work with their
> software--whether pro or consumer level. We thus see the flood of
> horrible design and dreadful typography that are common today.
> 
> I am happy that Scribus is not trying to be a consumer-level product
> and is aiming for professional standards. It is vital that the
> software incorporate the tools needed for high-level typography,
> which we do not have yet but which are on the roadmap. The ability
> to produce excellent PDFs is vital because they free the user from
> being trapped into the software the prepress people and printers
> use.
> 
> Aim for DTP professionals and do not make things easier in hopes of
> attracting more amateurs. Interested amateurs will come if they
> realize the need to acquire knowledge and skills to improve their
> document creation and want software that allows them to put their
> skills into practice. This doesn't preclude having a logical,
> elegant interface that makes life easier for the skilled user.
> 
> On a final note, I'm amused at how PageMaker is mentioned so often
> as if it's a current product. Hey--PageMaker became unsupported
> years ago. It was great in its day, but that day passed long ago.
> Quark became widely used before InDesign was created; InDesign has
> been picking up a lot of the professional market share. Ventura was
> an excellent program and while it's still alive theoretically, Corel
> doesn't promote it at all and shows no signs of updating it. By all
> means continue to use PageMaker if it meets your needs, but don't
> talk of it as if it's a current professional option.
> --Judy Miner
>    USA
> 
> Registered Linux User #397786
> 

I totally agree on those arguments.
Good points :)

Sveinn í Felli