Slashdot Mirror
Scribus 1.0 Released
McShazbot writes "Graphics.com has this article about the release of Scribus 1.0 (homepage, mirror) desktop publishing software. Check out some screenshots. If it can even marginally compete with the industry leader, this is a big deal -- I know a lot of people for whom Quark is the killer app that prevents them from moving to Linux, and most of them are tired of paying a grand for the privilege of using it."
I remember a couple of really *great* DTP programs on the Amiga, they were killer apps, but they didn't survive.
Being a killer app doesn't mean you won't be crushed and killed...
Anyway, nice to see some free good app in the DTP arena under linux.
No offense to the wonderful people creating the Scribus software. It's great to see options other than pay-your-left-nut-for-software.
l ), I bet many, many more OS X boxen will be sold, averting any "Great Migration" to Linux anytime soon by the DTP folk.
However, this is mostly pie-in-the-sky. With the new release of Quark for OS X (http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/mac_osx.htm
What is the availability of type faces on Linux? Part of the Mac's dominance in the DTP arena is that the type collection is so massive, and most converters don't do the fonts justice (in previous experiences, this held true, not sure if it's like that now). A strong offerring of type face compatibility as well as image capability (scanning/editing), would help users move to Linux for their DTP needs.
Will it be able to open quark and/or MS Publisher files for compatibility?
Actually, is there an existing (native) open-source linux program that can open MS Pub files?
Like many other Linux applications, this product is probably good enough. Is quark better? Almost certainly, and you'll pay $1000 premium for that improvment. Is Office better than OpenOffice. Yes. But most people don't need everything that makes Office better. Is Photoshop better than Gimp? Yes.
If your livelihood is dependent on it, then it may very well be worth $1000. But if you are just doing some amateur work or you have a small home business needing some DTP, then this is good enough. Programs like this change the game because it allows people to dabble in whole new areas without having to shell out a premium price.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I know a lot of people for whom Quark is the killer app that prevents them from moving to Linux, and most of them are tired of paying a grand for the privilege of using it.
You have to be joking. Anyone who whines about the prices of these products probably uses it as a convenience, and not for critical work. If they did they wouldn't complain about the $1000, or the $3/day a year -- you know, that StarBucks latte they have every day -- to use it. I'm always amazed by software organizations that try to skimp on paying for tools because things "cost too much", and then make that tool an integral part of their process. Alot of programs fall into this arena of specialized software with high price tags and great at what they do (or at least some people find them great at what they do, I have no interest in debating what you or I think are great software): math software like Mathematica and MathCad, IDE's and other development tools for programmers, RoboHelp, PhotoShop, and on and on. These programs are NOT meant to be cheap programs for Joe Blow, they are meant to be specialized and essential tools for professionals, researchers, whatever, and due to how successfully they perform their task have very wide acceptance.
Sure it's great when a free tool shows up that is just as good as another product. I love free tools. But if your work with such a tool doesn't justify the $3/day, you probably aren't the market they are shooting for.
So why should Scribus be held to a higher standard? If Adobe and Quark decided not to waste their time reverse-engineering the other's file formats, why should the OSS community? DTP requires such precision that a less-than-perfect conversion is useless.
So if the developers are reading this, don't waste your time on import or export filters for other DTP file fomats!!!!!!
We use Quark at our newspaper, naturally. There's a few hundred licenses in the company. It is a damn expensive app. But consumables are even more expensive. We print directly to negatives, and film costs a good chunk of change. If there's a problem, we have to re-print the negs. If we have to re-plate, that's a bunch more money. If we don't know there's a problem till the press starts, there'll be hell to pay. Some papers are using new technology that lets them print directly to the printing plate. The materials for that are even more expensive. With Quark, we know what we're getting when we click "Print." $1000 may be expensive for a program, but we use more than that in film and plates every day. Quark Inc. isn't a very well liked company - but when you know what you're getting for sure in your finished product, that makes all the difference.
GIMP is worthless as a publishing tool unless your platform is the internet. not only does it lack CMYK support, but it only supports one resolution, so let's not confuse the purpose of the program. it is a design and paint app for the internet, and only the internet.
I'll grant you the CMYK is a real problem if you are publishing. But what's the deal with "resolution"? In a digital image, "resolution" isn't actually a function of the image. The image data contains a certain number of pixels in each dimension. But it doesn't make any sense to refer to it having a resolution until it has a specific size, which is dependent on what it's being displayed/printed on.
I dunno. I just don't understand it. Graphic design folks have something weird going on with images. My wife, God bless her, cannot grasp pixels. We put pictures on the web, and I'll be like "OK, so we'll scale this to 320x240 because that's a friendly size for folks on modems" and she comes back with "What do you mean? How big is that in inches?" To which I reply "How the hell should I know? It depends on how big the persons monitor is!" And it's all downhill from there. She knows "inches". And she knows "dots per inch". But extrapolating from that to "dots" just doesn't seem to happen. Any insight you can provide into what exactly graphic designers think the "resolution" of a JPEG is would be appreciated.