[Scribus] [+] Re: Is 1.3.4 stable enough

[Julian Robbins]

mamem at gmx.net wrote:
> Wow, what a long exchange...
> The question remains for me:
> If I begin a big work with a lot of text, is it better to start right
> now in the 1.3.4., to be shure that it will work in the future 1.3.5.?
>   
Its always the answer, 'it depends'. I still only use 1.3.3.9 for my 
production work. For only a few pages you will have no problems at all. 
If you want to edit 50 pages you will. 1.3.4 is fairly stable, but 
there  is really no easy ways to go back to 1.3.3.9 for those files. 
Make sure you keep a copy in the 1.3.3.9 format separately to avoid such 
problems.
No, files created in 1.3.4 will always be compatible with 1.3.5.
> Is there already some Windows-version avaiable of 1.3.5?
>   
I don't think so yet.
> And: What will happen with the 1.3.3.9/10 branch: isn't this also dead
> end, once the 1.3.5. came out? Will 1.3.5. be stable somehow? How long
> there will be "two" scribus side by side?
>   
What you have to remember is that all software projects, including 
commercial ones, run just like this, but you rarely see the development 
versions. 1.3.5 will never be 'stable' as such; it will change version 
number to another (I'm not quite sure what it will be !).

The stable 1.3.3.9/10  series will continue to have major bugfixes 
applied, but to save time, new features and bugs which require a lot of 
time may be patched only in 1.3.5.

Its confusing because you get to see everything in the Open Source 
world, 'warts and all', the good, the bad, and the ugly. But the good 
thing is you DO get to see whatever you want, and have your own choice 
to use it as you see fit.

Julian Robbins

> Cordialement,
> Martin Kempf
>
>
> Gregory Pittman a ?crit :
>   
>> Dr. Werner Popken wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> I can tell you why I chose to use 1.3.4.
>>>
>>> Firstly, you offer it. That is a big mistake in my eyes if you
>>> strongly advise people to not use it after the fact. I felt like being
>>> messed around. If this is really your opinion, please take it off.
>>> Otherwise, don't scold people who use it, rather apaologise for
>>> tricking them into using it although you strongly disadvise to do so.
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> Scribus development is much the same as many open source, volunteer 
>> software projects out there. As such, it doesn't operate like a 
>> commercial software product, where releases come in a careful, measured 
>> way, and only in that way. We do see some commercial enterprises 
>> releases beta versions, really much the same as the developmental stuff 
>> you see with Scribus.
>>   
>>     
>>> Secondly, in my opinion, there are two kinds of users of open source
>>> software: those who only want to profit, and those who want to pay
>>> back as best they can. I'd like to belong to the second class, if I
>>> can afford it somehow. Using a new version, reporting bugs is a
>>> comparably easy way to give back. Hence I was not only confident to be
>>> able to work with an unstable version, as professional developers
>>> these days know how to avoid the most obvious problems, but looked
>>> forward in good faith to be welcomed for sharing my time and effort
>>> trying to make this version more usable. Instead, I learned that my
>>> effort is not wanted for, so I turned to 1.3.39 for the next project,
>>> only to find that I have to get used to a slightly different UI and
>>> feature set. In the meantime, I have sorted this quite well in my
>>> head, so I don't get confused that much anymore.
>>>
>>> For some years, I worked for a big open source company. We desperately
>>> looked for people giving new versions a try. We begged people to do
>>> it, we told them that this is what open source development is about,
>>> that we could afford to do great things with few manpower just because
>>> of this. Why did we have to fight this way? Typically, everybody would
>>> wait until the new version would be declared stable. So there were
>>> comparably very few people to use the new version, having the chance
>>> to find bugs. The developers waited for bug reports to come in. After
>>> some time, those reports ceased to come in, so what could they do?
>>> They had to declare the new version stable. Now everybody would jump
>>> to it and find lots of previously undiscoverd bugs, getting very
>>> angry, very rightly so, as this version just had been declared stable.
>>> What a disgusting mess!
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> I have to say, we see this with Scribus as well. Instability of a 
>> version is always a relative thing, and in fact the day or the week 
>> before a version is declared stable it is nearly identical to what will 
>> soon be the stable version. I think you're approaching this from the 
>> right mindset, but you come to Scribus with a much better understanding 
>> than most users. Overall, I don't think we've suffered so much from not 
>> having users willing to experiment with unstable/development versions.
>>   
>>     
>>> Thirdly, if I take the pain to work my way into a new piece of
>>> software, I'd like to do it once, not twice. Software tends to evolve,
>>> but I'd like to get my things done. That's why I prefer to work with
>>> versions I am familiar with, even if there are newer and more feature
>>> rich generations out there. In case I don't need those, I would even
>>> spend time and energy for nothing trying to get as productive with the
>>> new version as before. This is why many people feel offended by new
>>> versions of Windows or MS Office or what not. So I'd rather try an
>>> unstable version with more features even if that version is still
>>> comparably unstable, as these bug will get fixed the other day.
>>>
>>> This is what I thought. The company mentioned worked this way. They
>>> published often, and told people what changed. If you didn't suffer
>>> from a bug, you would not need a fix and would not upgrade. If you
>>> reported a bug, you would get a fix the other day. The next week,
>>> another version might be out there with some more fixes for the
>>> general public.
>>>
>>> Now I learn that 1.3.4 is a dead end and bugs will not be fixed at
>>> all. Surprise! Makes me wonder even more why this version is offered
>>> in the first place.
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> 1.3.4 is a dead-end in the sense that bugs are not going to be fixed -- 
>> the 1.3.4 you download today is the same as it was when it was released 
>> back in May. The bugfixes are being applied to 1.3.5svn, which has 
>> mostly the same feature set as 1.3.4, BUT, very importantly is using 
>> QT4, which is not yet a smooth transition from QT3. If 1.3.4 satisfies 
>> your needs, the one thing you can count on is that something that's 
>> working in 1.3.4 now is not going to become broken.
>>   
>>     
>>> Apart from this, I don't complain, but praise the developers and other
>>> friends of Scribus as best I can. Both versions are excellent
>>> software! 1.3.4 didn't present any serious problems I couldn't live
>>> with. I made my first project with it, a threefolded flyer, with all
>>> there is, text flowing around irregular shapes and so on. I showed it
>>> professionals at the Frankfurt Book Fair last week and they were
>>> impressed.
>>>
>>> Now I work on two books which will be ready for print this or next
>>> week (I'm writing an additional chapter right now, so this is not a
>>> question of Scribus or my concept). I understood that the handling of
>>> text is better in 1.3.4, so I plan to produce the final pdf file from
>>> 1.3.4. Is this correct or am I mistaken?
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> As has been stated, text handling is a lot different in 1.3.4 -- if it 
>> works, use it. Making something in 1.3.3.9 with a lot of text, then 
>> loading into 1.3.4 will likely create quite a bit of reformatting work.
>>   
>>     
>>> By the way, letter handling in 1.3.9 is great anyway, I am not
>>> proficient enough to see problems, but then I'm not a professional
>>> typograph, so I just might not be aware of flaws.
>>>
>>> Before, I produced books with PHP and fpdf, but the result was ugly. I
>>> tried LaTeX next, but found that they can't handle illustrations
>>> easily. After some learning, I am pretty happy with Scribus.
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> Great.
>>
>> Greg
>> _______________________________________________
>>     
>


-- 
Kind regards

Julian Robbins
Applications Engineer

Q-par Angus Ltd

Barons Cross Laboratories
Leominster
Herefordshire HR6 8RS
UK

Tel +44 (0) 1568 612138
Fax +44 (0) 1568 616373

Web www.q-par.com