[Scribus] Scribus on Windows XP

[Asif Lodhi]

Hi All,

On 4/12/06, PLinnell <mrdocs at scribus.info> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 07:09, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> 1) Exposing the code to Windows compilers unearthed several bugs which
> did not show up in either GCC, even GCC 4.1 with the strictest flags
> or in Sun's CC. Say what you want about MS, they do make decent
> compilers.

But doesn't it mean that the opensource developers need to put more
effort into making GCC better than MSVC?

Also, I think Linux file system needs more improvement.  In addition,
we need granular security on file system and services level.  Windows
has that security - at the object level - throughout.  IMO, Windows
gets more security attacks 'cos it's used by more people around the
world.  Disconnect it from the internet, use it on the local network
and it's more stable.  At least, after a power failure, Windows (with
NTFS) is more likely to start smoothly than Linux.  IMHO, all that
boils down to is:  opensource developers need to put more efforts in
making Linux a better  OS.  It also means that we need to make more
efforts in developing new font technologies, new fonts, better color
management systems, etc. - when it comes to DTP/graphcis/Layout, etc.
on Linux.  Porting OSS to Windows does indeed help the end-users but I
agree with Christopher that users do tend to stay with Windows instead
of coming to Linux!  They will use Linux only if they have to deploy
Scribus, for example, on lots of machines - cutting OS license cost is
the name of the game in that scenario.  Conversely, Windows-ported OSS
does indeed help the end-user transition to Linux gradually when s/he
sees the same OSS running on Linux the same way with the same
look-n-feel.  However, it must also be taken into account that every
OSS port to Windows makes their monopoly stronger & sturdier than
before!

Quoting my own example, I have to recommend Windows as a desktop for
my current project  because my client won't be using UPSes for
hundreds of computers and I know that Linux sometimes dumps you into
command-line after a crash due to power-failure, for instance - where
the user is supposed to manually recover lost fragments using a
command-line system program.  Although ext3 has matured considerably,
it still lags far behind when you think about the robustness of
Windows NTFS filesystem.  I am also thinking about using a Live-CD
work-around for such as crash-scenario along with ext3.  But NTFS is a
better option nonetheless.

Endless discussion, guys! ...

--
Best regards,

Asif