[Scribus] Scribus 1.3.4 in Ubuntu amd64 repositories

[Christoph Schäfer]

Hi John,

Am Montag, 6. August 2007 18:39 schrieb John Jason Jordan:
<snip>
> As for the "scribus" package, for Ubuntians that would be 1.2.5-1,
> which is pretty old. But more importantly, the comment brings up a
> different issue: How stable is stable? In the world of commercial
> software upgrades are few and far between, but generally include a lot
> of new features. The pattern is to release a new version only every
> couple of years, with massive testing to ensure that only a minor patch
> or two will be needed after release. 

Did you ever use some big closed source software packages? Like, eg Microsoft 
Windows or Adobe CreativeSuite? After the release of a "stable" version, you 
have to install hundreds of patches. This can happen via auto-update or with 
something called ServicePack. In the first case, you'll have to restart your 
Windows PC every once in a while, in the second you wait for the SP, install 
it and reboot once. A Windows SP is nothing less than an update of a 
distribution. You can't compare Windows XP to Windows XP SP1 or Windows XP 
SP2. They're almost different operating systems, it's the branding that makes 
them look the same. Internally, each SP or whatever the term coined by the 
vendor may be, means hundreds of patches.

Also, while closed source software is tested extensively, it's far from 
perfect. Often enough you even have to pay to be admitted to testing. Again, 
the long release cycles are a result of marketing rather than development 
policies.

> The open source world works on a 
> different schedule. Upgrades tend to be very frequent, involving few
> new features each time, and there is little testing. 

There's lot of testing, but at least in the case of Scribus, testing isn't 
exactly easy, since it's available for lots of hardware platforms and 
OSes/distros.

> Indeed, the early 
> adopters *are* the testers.

Sure, but I don't know any sane company that uses a closed source software 
before the first or even second release of ServicePacks/Hotfixes, whatever. 
The only difference is versioning scheme, as described above. In business, 
there are "early adopters", some of which even get financial support from 
vendors for early adaption, and there's the rest, waiting for the first or 
even second SP/Hotfix, whatever. Before that, no sane CIO will start a 
roll-out of a new and untested software without putting his job at risk.

In the end, the situation isn't that different, except that FLOSS provides a 
new version, while commercial vendors provide cumulative patches.

<snip>

Cheers

Christoph