Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scribus Cracks the Big Leagues in Print

Posted by michael on from the read-all-about-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In an interview on O'Reilly, The Scribus Team, who recently released Scribus 1.2 , reveal the first commercial adoptions of Scribus, GIMP, Inkscape, and Linux by commercial newspapers. Who said Linux could not make it in the print world ?"

13 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. More comfortable link.. by Karamchand · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..to a print edition of the quite insightful article.

  2. Google Cache by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 4, Informative

    3 comments and it's gone.

    Here is a google cache of thier website.

    --

    int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  3. Re:Drawing software by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IMO the real issues with GIMP are more with CMYK support, 16bit per channel , and other pro features.

    The interface isn't too bad with 2.0 - unless you're expecting a Photoshop clone.

  4. Painful as it is... by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the most useful filters I can think of would be an import filter for MS Publisher.

    I know quite a few small businesses that use this software and take it to press. Yes, most print shops moan about it, but they still accept the EPS files.

    Publisher is used because of convenience (it is there); ease of use for small setups as opposed to Quark or Pagemaker; and integration w/Word and Excel. It is an abomination, but it is still popular.

    A filter for Scribus could help me move a couple of shops off of Windows boxes.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  5. InDesign? by Allen+Varney · · Score: 5, Informative
    Peter Linnell: InDesign has progressed remarkably, but really given the resources Adobe has at its disposal, it should [be] no less than stellar.

    Uhh...? Is this to imply that InDesign ISN'T stellar? Every Quark and PageMaker layout artist I know who has tried InDesign CS has moved to it with a glad heart. It's a great program.

    So far it sounds like Scribus is setting the bar at beating PageMaker and Quark. That's great, but when Scribus also overtakes InDesign, that's when I'll cheer loudest.

    1. Re:InDesign? by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My big disappointment with Scribus is that they've not done anything interesting with H&J (surely, at a minimum they could make use of TeX's algorithm?).

      Interestingly, InDesign makes use of TeX's algorithm (by way of URW's HZ program) as the basis for their multi-line composer.

      GIMP really needs to have a generalized model for handling colours as ink and ink mixes --- this would get them CMYK support ``for free'', but doing this sort of thing without running afoul of extant patents on colour representation is rather a thorny issue.

      An interesting and viable alternative is to just use RGB w/ the colour calibration and allow the conversion to CMYK to be done in the RIP (which is the big advantage of the PDF/X-3 support).

      For my part, InDesign rubs me the wrong way since it's like to a hybrid of two programs I don't much like, Quark and Illustrator. The UI for Scribus does seem quite promising, which is nice for an opensource program.

      That said, other alternatives for opensource publishing (for long / technical documents mostly) include LyX, http://www.lyx.org (uses LaTeX as a back-end for typesetting) and texmacs (which is a visual hybrid of emacs and TeX)

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  6. why not expect it? by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    PS is the standard for image manipulation programs, so I don't understand the reluctance of gimp developers to provide a 'ps emulator' mode for Gimp so people familiar with PS could feel more at home. Heck, even emacs has vi modes for crying out loud! It's not like actually getting more users for Gimp would be a bad thing, right?

    Personally I don't mind as much the Gimp UI (in 2.0, in 1.3 I minded it very much) despite the fact that I am more used to the PS keyboard shortcuts, but can't really use it as my primary app until adjustment layers will finally be supported (people have been asking for this feature for years and years, yeah, I know, if we want it so bad, why don't we code it)

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
    1. Re:why not expect it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      PS is the standard for image manipulation programs

      Erm, could you please expand your acronyms? I just wasted 3 seconds of my OSVT figuring out how this could possibly be a sensible thing to say about postscript, then another 5 seconds figuring out what you *actually* meant PS to stand for, then another 20 seconds posting this dumb comment.

      Please, please, on behalf of readers everywhere....

      (Oh, and BTW, OSVT = oh-so valuable time, ROFL)

    2. Re:why not expect it? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The folks working on Gimp have other things that they would rather work on than gimping (ha) PhotoShop's interface. Basically the Gimp developers know that current PhotoShop users aren't particularly interested in switching to the Gimp, and so they are aiming at the masses below the current PhotoShop users. If the Gimp can become popular with the folks that don't want to spend hundreds of dollars to edit photos then they will win in the long run.

      Eventually PhotoShop might even have to emulate the Gimp :).

      So the Gimp hackers work on the functionality that they need to compete with PS (like adjustment layers), and they have created an interface that they think will compete well with PS (instead of merely stealing PS's interface).

    3. Re:why not expect it? by grumbel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even as a long time Gimp user (~5 years), with basically no Photoshop and only a little CorelPhotopaint knowledge I have to say that the Gimp interface just sucks. Yes, it gets the job done and it could be worse (think sodipodi ;), but there is just so much in it that could be improved. While WiW might not be the solution, having to have at least 5 or 6 windows open even if I am just editing a single image just sucks extremly, docking helps a little bit, but its not a solution, just a little workaround and worst of all there is currently no way do dock stuff to the image window itself, so palett and brush window have to be floating around, annoying.

      Speaking about 'working on core functionality', sorry, but I havn't seen much of that happening, they might have rewritten the core of Gimp once or twice, but basically none of that is visible from a users point of view. There is still no macro recorder, you can't resize brushes, you don't have a toolbar for custom buttons, there are no advanced brushes[1], you can't even draw a 1 pixel circle with it, you can create new tools as plug-ins, etc. Sure, some of this might require some work, but simple stuff like drawing primitives is only missing because the developers seem to be extremly hostile to anything that doesn't fit their philosophie (which in most part seems to be based on NIH[2]). Userfriendliness seems to be something that they try to avoid at all cost.

      After all one should not forget that the Gimp interface never seems to have been much designed, it just happens to be started that way and never ever touched again.

      I just hope that one day there will be an alternative to Gimp, maybe compatible to Gimp plug-ins, so that we could finally get rid of Gimp.

      [1] http://www.levien.com/gimp/wetdream.html
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here

      PS: This might be a bit more flaimbait then I really mean, but reading about how people tell how Gimp is all good and fine is just extremly frustrating, since it is cleary not.

  7. importers by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, good import filters are incredibly hard. Look at how much trouble OO.o has with Word ... and they can afford to get things wrong.

    Even Adobe's filters for PageMaker (for which they have the source code) are far from perfect. Their Quark filters often result in pages that need a lot of tweaking.

    If a small error is found in the print job, it's not fun. At all. Even if the client approved the wrong proof, they'll bitch, moan, be generally difficult, and waste your time.

    Also, good clients who can properly check proofs, provide good quality samples, etc are rarely the ones using Publisher in the first place.

    In my experience the best importer for DTP is Acrobat Distiller.

  8. There's still a lot to be done in API:s though.. by k98sven · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a lot to be done in the field of API:s.

    Basically, I'd like to see a good and definitive API for vector graphics. This is something still very lacking.

    Preferably, the API would handle:
    * High-quality printing
    * Export to PS,SVG,PDF
    * Bitmap rendering (for on-screen drawing)
    * Support transparency
    * Be well integrated with the font API:s.

    Basically, a unification of all 2d graphics things into one single device-independent API.

    Apple already has something similar to this in Quartz.

    Supposedly, Cairo is supposed to do this, but given that there is no real documentation or roadmap for it, it's hard to say how, when or if it will ever get there.

  9. PDF and PANTONE by .+visplek+. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since I work in the digital printing business I have to love Linux because open source started with a printer driver. :) But the really important thing is that my few Linux customers can deliver me the perfect file: A PDF. Making a PDF under Linux is very easy and doesn't require expensive software like Adobe Acrobat. I got a lot of my customors to use PDFcreator (sourceforge) but a lot of them just have to hand over MS Word and MS Publisher documents. They are both a big problem. Especially Publisher. Even a (Ghost- or PostScript) PDF made out of a Publisher file is messy. I like Scribus a lot and it's just something you have to get used to. For the lack of CMYK support: I don't care that much. The CMYK Offset printing has tough competition from machines like the HP Indigo 3050. These baby's print from RGB files and make really stunning prints. My Windows Office clients using MS Word and MS Publisher can design their own stuff and have it printed with Offset Quality and speed as long as they take the effort to make a PDF file. My Linux Scribus, KOffice, OpenOffice, etc. customers too but they have less problems with making a PDF file. The thing that that is still a problem is the lack of PANTONE color support. This would make it possibe to have stuff printed with just two colors insted of four making the prints a LOT cheaper.

    --
    - Save a tree, eat more woodpeckers