[scribus] off list Re: ! ;-)

[joseph harris]

Joseph Harris
From: "John Beardmore"
> joseph harris wrote:
>> From: "John Beardmore"
>>> joseph harris wrote:
.......
>>> Remember the adage that DTP != WP.
>>
>> And that there was a lot of 'can do DTP' in some WP selling. 
>> Whether it should have been is another issue. The fact is that 
>> DTP is a widely used term now.
>
> Is it ?  Perhaps. Maybe we should be talking about 'page 
> layout' as opposed to WP.

That might get one into more complexity rather than less; it 
might also be moving the goalposts. I don't think any of the 
programs mentioned are limited to just that, and most WP includes 
page layout of a sort. And I would see distinct differences 
between page layout and page design. Master pages are part of the 
design process, within the design decisions of size, shape and 
orientation of document.

If one accepts web sites within the publishing concept then the 
design and layout issues become even more complex, with the 
linear vs non-linear well to the fore - never mind the variations 
of html, css and so on. Some programs enable the production of 
print and site from essentially the same developed file.

I find the better classification to be level of detail control 
combined with how easy it is to use. Both tend to relate to the 
skills and preferences of he user.

>
>
>> DT now includes portable computers for example, which are very 
>> powerful machines often.
>
> Is that a hair worth splitting ?

It was less a hair than noting an expansion of the 
ever-increasing ease for users which also affects P and WP. That 
there is ever less tying to training or place.

......
>> There is always development of programs so it is more now an 
>> issue of 'what might have been there' and to what extent has 
>> simpler operation reduced or contained flexibility. Assuming 
>> by dumbing down we mean easier operation at a price of some 
>> choices.
>
> I'm not sure we should assume that.

Then I would like to see another description of dumbing down.

.............
>> I was thinking in marketing terms; at current market shares 
>> Scribus is an alternative, but not in any serious ways a 
>> competitor.
>
> If I stop spending money with Adobe, which I have, it is 
> reducing their turnover and profit. At a wild guess their 
> accountants will see OSS as competition.

It is the numbers. Repeat business for Adobe means a single buyer 
returns in a couple of years maybe; new buyers are found and 
brought to action by marketing. If you don't come back how will 
they notice? If sales figures slip Adobe ups its marketing 
budget.

With more people trying their hands at either doing the simple 
business of publishing their own work [;-)] or moving up to more 
professional solutions or trying to cut publishing costs the fact 
of a small competitor in a growing market doesn't impact easily. 
I would venture that a free program is rarely understood in 
commercial reckoning either.

That might well change and I think Open Source is getting some 
notice now from the big commercial concerns (boyond the watching 
brief).

>
>
>> The failures on bugs may indicate how competition can both 
>> drive to new ideas, but also reduce the sizes of technical 
>> teams.
>
> On the other hand, having no competition gives no incentive to 
> have development teams.
>
>
> Cheers, J/.

I am not sure of your premise. Is there ever a 'no competition' 
situation? There is always a first everything, mousetrap or 
whatever. It is always to solve a problem and competes with the 
current solution or lack of it. And it can come from customer 
demand; goldsmiths to banking system is a good example of that.

Joseph Harris