JDS wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:41:33 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000225
> >
> > Linux also boasts some of the best tools for composing books and replacing
> > what is perceived as a standard/necessity, e.g. Adobe Illustrator.
>
> Once again, I must reiterate how awful Scribus is *TO USE*.
>
> Yes, Scribus produces good, print-ready PDFs.
>
> Yes, Scribus can do PDF forms.
>
> Yes, Scribus is Open Source blah blah blah.
>
> But it is fucking impossible to use! No undo! That alone should let you
> know how fucking hard it is to use. Has anyone here actually *used*
> Scribus?
Well, maybe not in this group, but quite a few people use Scribus
professionally, even the development version 1.3.3. Maybe other people
do not rely that heavily on undo as you ;-)
There *is* undo in version 1.3, even if some areas are currently
lacking, eg. text editing. Also the speed has much improved in 1.3.3.
Scribus is also developing very fast. Some RFEs are picked up so fast
that they are implemented within days (not the big ones of course, like
PDF import or footnote handling).
> I do like the fact that Scribus *exists* but it is in near-alpha stage, if
> you ask me.
I've no idea what you consider "alpha" but it's obviously not the same
state as applied in general to FOSS software. Most "betas" crash more
often than Scribus's 1.3.x development releases. And the fact that
people *do* use it for professional publishing shows that it has enough
features to be usable for *some* projects.
> Of course, you didn't ask me. But I offered anyways. Aren't I
> nice?
Dunno. Maybe I shouldn't decide based on reading only one of your
postings ;-)
/Andreas
|
|
