[scribus] ! ;-)

[joseph harris]

From: "Murray Strome"
> --- On Wed, 8/13/08, joseph harris  wrote:
........
> Perhaps it explains the difference between the commercial
> approach, where useablitily is a prime concern, and open 
> source,
> where the technical aspects absorb the interest.
.......
>
> Joseph Harris
>
> I think that this is a generalization that is not necessarily 
> the case.
> For example, in the area of Video Editing, both Nero and 
> Cyberlink
> offer commercial packages that are VERY difficult to use except
> for the most elementary of editing tasks.  On the other hand, 
> Open Source Cinerella
> has a really nice user interface, and editing video is much 
> easier
> than with the two commercial packages mentioned*. Liquid Avid 
> and
> Pinnacle (which is now owned by Avid) do make very good video 
> editing
> packages (Avid is used by many commercial movie and 
> TVproducers),
> but they are quite expensive.
>
> In my opinion, the packages in OpenOffice are at least as user 
> friendly
> and easy to use as the MS equivalents. The only issue with OO 
> is
> the compatibility with MS for very complicated documents. To 
> make
> life easier for everyone, normally I exchange text type 
> documents in
> Rich Text Format (RTF) as this is understood by almost every 
> word
> processing software.
>
> *NOTE: The version of Cinerella that I have been trying has a 
> bug that
> does make it unusable for me -- it dies immediately after it 
> has rendered
> the video without finalizing the file it was writing. I have 
> not
> had the opportunity to report this, and hope it will be fixed 
> in
> the next release when I will try it again.
>
> Murray

I meant to answer this also on my post to John. Very quickly:

My contention of user-friendly being the priority is not a 
guarantee of it being achieved; that's why some progams succeed, 
others don't. Even the mightly stumble as ME and Vista bear 
witness to.

I hold no brief for M$ programs, but the success of Outlook 
Express - often imitated, even in open source ;-) - shows how the 
right answer can be a winner commercially and in acceptance.

I see and try many programs made for windows as user-friendly and 
windows compatible. Some I cannot make head or tail of. Others 
prove a real boon. Often I see those I cannot get on with 
recommended with unstinted praise, and those I like slammed.

More often than not ease is a key demand, and the windows format 
does generally deliver ease of use, ease of d/l, ease of 
installation and up and running with no worries about whether all 
the needed files are there. The trade off, as I said, is limited 
choice in the program.

Best wishes,

Joseph Harris