I can't understand why someone would complain about a free product. Sincerely, Charles Brooks
--- Julian Robbins <julian.robbins at q-par.com> wrote: > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
