[Scribus] Scribus in the Art Lab

[Le Tigre]

Sukhi Venkat (TnQ) a ?crit :
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>>That is simply not the case. InDesign still does not have more
>>>marketshare than Quark, and it didn't really take hold until it was
>>>bundled in the CS suite. V1&2 were both originally intended for Mac OS9,
>>>and it wasn't until Adobe shipped CS which included an OSX-only version
>>>of InDesign that it was really embraced. There were *many* bugs in the
>>>first two versions that kept people at bay. And FWIW, many designers
>>>here is Texas are still loyal to Quark. Personally, I like Indesign
>>>because it previews better than Quark does, but v7 is supposed to be
>>>pretty slick.
>>
>>Maybe in Texas.. 
> 
> 
> The problem with these kinds of debate that each is entrenched in his
> own camp and is usually argumentative. I once made an application in my
> office and after some years I called it "rubbish" and that it needs a
> complete redesign. There was eerie silence in the office, especially
> among the users, who have developed a personal attachment to that tool.
> It was my baby, but it has its own existence...I suppose.
> 
> Having said all this, I would say the same of Quark, that it is
> "rubbish" and it needs a complete redesign. If you redesign it with a
> modern perspective you will get InDesign CS2, which is what Quark 7 is
> trying to catch-up with, but their designers are still struck in old
> frame of mind, there are still minor technical details like their RTF
> import (which doesn't import Paragraph and Character style name values).
> Minor points I suppose, but if you are professional then you will know
> its importance.
> But finally to say a good word about Quark, I heard that their EPS
> import is better than Adobe's, I wonder if it is still true...
> 
> Suki
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scribus mailing list
> Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
> http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
> 
> 
My experience (and I just agree with what many people said here) is that 
people should be less concerned by softwares, and much more by graphism.

Since many years (even before Scribus existed) I was so surprised that 
people were very happy to have great and expansive softwares and able to 
make so poor layouts (we all know people who where using the Photoshop 
filters for making umbras and things like that which can be so ugly).

And now, I see people that complain about Scribus (since it was ported 
on Windows), telling it's complicated: but did they just try to make a 
"maquette" with a pencil and white paper? People think that softwares 
will make the graphism, but it's not true.

I think (and we're many here I feel :) ) that the software is here to 
help you and not to do the job for you. So the important thing is to 
think about  the GPL license and what it means, philosophically and 
intellectually. If tomorrow InDesign choose the GPL Licence, I could try 
to consider using it...

Does people really realize what the free sofwares mean? A really new way 
of thinking about the community, the solidarity, the share, and all 
those things, which are a "pied de nez" to the capitalist economy.

For me, the first thing that me made going to Scribus was: we can show 
to the world (euh... let's say: to the readers of "Le Tigre") that 
another way of making things is possible. It's called: the free softwares.


Raphael

(and, of course, sorry for my english - I'd like to say that in French, 
that would surely be more clear)