Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Linux

Scribus 1.0 Released 351

Posted by timothy from the at-least-a-wounder-app dept.
McShazbot writes "Graphics.com has this article about the release of Scribus 1.0 (homepage, mirror) desktop publishing software. Check out some screenshots. If it can even marginally compete with the industry leader, this is a big deal -- I know a lot of people for whom Quark is the killer app that prevents them from moving to Linux, and most of them are tired of paying a grand for the privilege of using it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scribus 1.0 Released More

Scribus 1.0 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Mac OS X Version (Score:5, Informative)

    by daeley ( 126313 ) * on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:26PM (#6447496) Homepage
    For Mac OS X users, there is a version of Scribus (RC1 of 1.0, I believe.) in fink-unstable. Not the latest version (and not stable of course), but might be worth a look-see.

  • Interesting... but ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lightman_73 ( 183090 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:26PM (#6447498)
    I remember a couple of really *great* DTP programs on the Amiga, they were killer apps, but they didn't survive.

    Being a killer app doesn't mean you won't be crushed and killed...

    Anyway, nice to see some free good app in the DTP arena under linux.

    • There were also a few really neat ones for the Atari. My dad used to have an application called PageStream (I think that's what it was called) that I used to write all of my school papers on as a kid ... it was an awesome little program.

      The thing was running on a TT030 with one of those big ass monitors running at what at the time was an ungodly resolution (and even today is way more than most people use), printing to a reasonably affordable laser printer (that was a wierd bugger too ... no onboard memory
      • PageStream was out for the Amiga as well. It was a seriously good word process and desktop publishing program.

        As I remember its had some amazing Arexx code that made it good for speech writing (speaks back to you and aids in pacing)

        Also had a biolography Arexx plugin as well, which frankly i still dont see out nowadays.

        Also had some neat Finaldraft work as well.

    • Pagestream Lives (Score:5, Informative)

      by jayrtfm ( 148260 ) <jslashNO@SPAMsophont.com> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:25PM (#6447986) Homepage Journal
      Pagestream [grasshopperllc.com] is still active, and has a version for Linux, and also shipping Mac/PC/Amiga versions.
      This newest version looks like it has some features Quark doesn't have.

  • Not quite Quark (Score:5, Funny)

    by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:26PM (#6447501)
    But might make Microsoft Publisher unnecessary :)

  • Good luck! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zanthany ( 166662 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:28PM (#6447515) Journal
    No offense to the wonderful people creating the Scribus software. It's great to see options other than pay-your-left-nut-for-software.

    However, this is mostly pie-in-the-sky. With the new release of Quark for OS X (http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/mac_osx.html [quark.com]), I bet many, many more OS X boxen will be sold, averting any "Great Migration" to Linux anytime soon by the DTP folk.

    • Re:Good luck! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by felonious ( 636719 )
      "I bet many, many more OS X boxen will be sold, averting any "Great Migration" to Linux anytime soon by the DTP folk."

      Isn't the Mac only 1-5% of the total market? If so then claiming a "great migration" from the Mac side would be a serious, serious overstatement. Plus most Mac users will never give up their Mac over any circumstances....

      Just the facts
      • The Mac marketshare isn't large in the overall pool of computer users, but it's very high (dunno the statistics) in the DTP vertical market.

      • Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ScottGant ( 642590 )
        Macs are only 1-5% of the total desktop market, this is true.

        But Macs are almost...but not quite...100% of the printing market. There are a few out there use PCs, sure, but they are in the vast minority when it comes to 4 color printing and page layout.

        I work in the industry. I've worked in printing for almost 20 years at a number of companies. PC's just simply are not used in production at any of these pre-press houses...Macs have this multi-billion dollar industry sewn up. I don't know how many times ov

    • Good enough... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sterno ( 16320 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:48PM (#6447680) Homepage
      Like many other Linux applications, this product is probably good enough. Is quark better? Almost certainly, and you'll pay $1000 premium for that improvment. Is Office better than OpenOffice. Yes. But most people don't need everything that makes Office better. Is Photoshop better than Gimp? Yes.

      If your livelihood is dependent on it, then it may very well be worth $1000. But if you are just doing some amateur work or you have a small home business needing some DTP, then this is good enough. Programs like this change the game because it allows people to dabble in whole new areas without having to shell out a premium price.

      • YEEEHAH!!!! CMYK for GIMP via Scribus (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <abacaxi@NoSpAM.hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @07:06PM (#6448334)
        "Is Photoshop better than Gimp? Yes."

        But the GIMP plus Scribus would give me the last missing bit of PhotoShop/Quark, the CMYK and pre-press stuff.

        Edit photos in the GIMP, which in a head-to-head test several years ago (a very early GIMP for Windows) produced finished photos that were not distinguishable from the same photos edited in PhotoShop. Then bring them into Scribus and export the color separations.

        Save about $2000 :)

        • UMmm yeah (Score:3, Insightful)

          by metalhed77 ( 250273 )
          Edit photos in the GIMP, which in a head-to-head test several years ago (a very early GIMP for Windows) produced finished photos that were not distinguishable from the same photos edited in PhotoShop. Then bring them into Scribus and export the color separations.

          So you mean things like adjust colors, hue contrast etc are the same? Big surprise, the Image Magick library can probably do that. Photoshop belies its name, its image creation tools are exceedingly powerful. The combination of its multiplicity of

    • Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie ( 31020 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:54PM (#6447732) Journal
      "However, this is mostly pie-in-the-sky"

      Why's that? So the big DTP houses won't move to Scribis. Who cares? That doesn't mean this won't turn out to be a valuable tool for anyone who doesn't have the cash to plop down down on commercial DTP program. Contrary to popular belief free software isn't Always about destroying commercial competitors.

      Up till now there simply hasn't been anything DTP running on linux worthing mentioning. I'm really happy to see a workable Pagemaker alternative available on linux. Let's not forget that since Adobe won't tough linux with a 10 foot pole Scribus is well on its way to 100% marketshare on linux.

      Gimp+Scribus=quality publishing software for free on a free platform. This will be VERY useful for those schools, small businesses, and users who want to do some graphics work without breaking the bank.

      Just because this won't spur a mass migration to linux doesn't mean this software won't be valuable to a hell of a lot of people.
    • Well, first of all I think it's rather ridiculous to think people would switch applications (Quark to Scribus) rather then using 'emulated' OS9 code on OSX.

      Besides, that's not the point anyway. The point is that once people start using Scribus, they can switch between MacOS, Linux, and Windows, rather then simply MacOS and Windows. Linux becomes a viable option.

    • Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Informative)

      by scribusdocs ( 689789 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @09:48PM (#6449444) Homepage

      My first slashdot post..:o

      Let me begin by noting I wrote most of the documentation and have done significant testing of Scribus since 0.3.7. I also support DTP and pre-press folks professionally.

      I can assure you Scribus was not created to be a "Quark killer" or divert Quark or Mac users to Linux. That would be stupid and pointless. I find in the pre-press business here and there folks who are quite bigoted about Quark and/or Macs, but that is another discussion.. MacOSX in this case is irrelevant. Moreover, Windows 2k and XP in particular have reached near parity in DTP app support. Until MacOSX, they are far more stable than the older Mac OS's. I have clients who are magazine and newpaper publishers who run entire production departments not on Macs, but on Win2k.

      Quark is not the end all and be all of DTP.Quark has many many weaknesses going forward into the new PDF oriented workflows of commercial printing. Personally, I think Indesign 2.0.2 is the current state of the art in DTP. It is much better than earlier versions. Printers who bitch about the current version, typically need to update their RIP's.

      The value of Scribus stands alone. Scribus gives Linux and *nix users a badly needed tool for the desktop. Scribus gives Linux/*nix users around the world the ability to create content like hi-res PDF and DTP files, previously impossible before..

      Scribus has many unique features and design goals which are somewhat different from Quark and Indesign:

      • It is translated in 17 languages and porting to other languages is really easy. It also supports right to left languages like Arabic and Hebrew.
      • It has the ability to create interactive PDF with hyperlinks, form fields and javascript. Only Acrobat can do this equally. Other DTP apps like Quark, Pagemaker and Indesign can do a very limited set of these features.
      • It is much more user friendly than quark without the dumbed down wizards of other DTP apps.
      • The Scribus format is XML and fully documented.
      • With the optional color management of littlecms, the first open sourced color management system in any app. Hopefully, the GIMP folks will follow with CMYK support. Scribus supports CMYK fully, including importing spot colors in EPS.
      • We're having fun!!

      • having fun (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Craig Ringer ( 302899 )
        ... is what's most important.

        I for one appreciate what you guys are doing, too. I'm syadmin at a Quark house, and we've got extensive experience with the "pitfalls" in PDF workflow with quark. Especially Quark 4, where it's PDF import is apallingly unreliable and quirky.

        Scribus looks interesting, and I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it. Helping out if I can (mostly a non-programmer) and testing. What many people don't realise is that you don't have to pick ONE DTP platform. We're considering buing som

        • Re:having fun (Score:3, Informative)

          by scribusdocs ( 689789 )

          Especially Quark 4, where it's PDF import is apallingly unreliable and quirky.

          Amen You will find Indesign light years ahead with this.

          We're considering buing some win2k boxes with InDesign for ad design and layout.

          I am migrating one client to this now. It just works

          You mention that the Scribus format is XML - would that happen to be loaded with verification + good error checking? A DTP app that didn't just crash on damaged documents would be a godsend. "EPS Element 'bobsyouruncle.eps' is damaged a

          • Re:having fun (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Craig Ringer ( 302899 )
            Alas, I'm not such a fan of InDesign's UI. Quark got that one right. Perhaps InDesign's is better to new DTP users, but for those who started in the days of cut'n'paste, Quark 'just makes sense' and InDesign seems like a lot of work to do anything. Perhaps more time on it will change the perception.

            As for the XML format - it's nice to be able to manually fix in a text editor or (ideally) something that can verify the XML against it's DTD and allow you to edit it with problem areas highlighted. However, it

  • Desktop Software (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:28PM (#6447519)

    This is great! Right now, we have plenty of good software to compete on the desktop.

    Programs like OpenOffice, Mr. Project, Evolution, Mozilla, GIMP and Scribe really give us the strength to do so. Now we only need a good visio-like tool to be complete.

    And, of course, if you are a web developer, we still lack a good dreamweaver-like tool. I hope we'll have one soon...

    This kind of stuff will make a difference in Linux winning desktop market.

    • Re:Desktop Software (Score:5, Interesting)

      by listen ( 20464 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:45PM (#6447661)
      Quanta + is turning into a pretty damn good web designer thingy - it uses a modified khtml to do Wysiwg or visual page layout as they call it. Thats in cvs. Should be out with KDE 3.2, sometime in the autumn. PHP support is strongest atm, 'twould be good if it got some more JSP and Zope support in there. Maybe even asp.net for mono....

      Kivio and Dia are visio like tools.
      Kivio is getting some active development after a bit of a lull, and Dia has AFAIK been actively developed for quite some time.

    • And, of course, if you are a web developer, we still lack a good dreamweaver-like tool. I hope we'll have one soon...

      What? I thought the nix's had excellent text editors. From the way you guys talk around here they might even be considered superior to the ones in Windows. I don't understand? Can someone please explain?

    • Re:Desktop Software (Score:3, Insightful)

      by akahige ( 622549 )
      I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but while it might be exceptionally attractive to have a nice DTP app for Linux (from the user perspective), there is NO CHANCE that this product will EVER be able to "even marginally compete" with Quark without one thing happening... it has to be supported by output and print houses, and they tend to be extremely conservative about supporting/adopting new software.

      I'm not talking about Kinko's-type places who will happily dump a PDF on their DocuTech, I'm talking about p
      • It's already supported by any professional offset printer worth talking to. It outputs PDF files - the prefered format of many, many printers.

        Gimp, on the other hand, really needs CMYK support. Maybe a DTP app on the platform will help spur them on.

        • Re:Desktop Software (Score:2, Informative)

          by akahige ( 622549 )
          It's already supported by any professional offset printer worth talking to. It outputs PDF files - the prefered format of many, many printers.

          out of curiosity, I picked up the phone and went through my list of preferred vendors for offset print work in the greater Elay metroplex. out of twelve calls, NONE of them had ever heard of Scribus, and the ONLY formats they were willing to accept were Quark and InDesign. they were occasionally willing to accept PDF for small jobs (like a mostly text ad or somethi

          • Re:Desktop Software (Score:3, Interesting)

            by scrotch ( 605605 )
            I appreciate the time you took to call around.

            I have had brochures, newspapers and magazines printed from PDF files without issue. Including among them were a map containing a 600MB Photoshop TIFF, and a number of 133 lpi magazines. They have been printed in Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, and England. There have been no image quality issues.

            I have also worked for a web printing company that worked with them quite successfully (and still does). Many, if not most, new RIPs will handle them as well as the

      • Re:Desktop Software (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:50PM (#6448202)
        GIMP is worthless as a publishing tool unless your platform is the internet. not only does it lack CMYK support, but it only supports one resolution, so let's not confuse the purpose of the program. it is a design and paint app for the internet, and only the internet.

        I'll grant you the CMYK is a real problem if you are publishing. But what's the deal with "resolution"? In a digital image, "resolution" isn't actually a function of the image. The image data contains a certain number of pixels in each dimension. But it doesn't make any sense to refer to it having a resolution until it has a specific size, which is dependent on what it's being displayed/printed on.

        I dunno. I just don't understand it. Graphic design folks have something weird going on with images. My wife, God bless her, cannot grasp pixels. We put pictures on the web, and I'll be like "OK, so we'll scale this to 320x240 because that's a friendly size for folks on modems" and she comes back with "What do you mean? How big is that in inches?" To which I reply "How the hell should I know? It depends on how big the persons monitor is!" And it's all downhill from there. She knows "inches". And she knows "dots per inch". But extrapolating from that to "dots" just doesn't seem to happen. Any insight you can provide into what exactly graphic designers think the "resolution" of a JPEG is would be appreciated.
        • Amen to this. I just today had a conversation with a rather nice and intelligent girl at work who got a mail from someone who insisted that she send him a picture "at least 300 DPI". For chrissakes can we just PLEASE get that one thing clear. Maybe we should put it in elementary school education.

          DPI IS NOT AN PROPERTY OF A PICTURE. OK? CLEAR? Yes?

          The girl understands that now, but the idiot she has to deal with probably does not.

          • she send him a picture "at least 300 DPI"[...]
            DPI IS NOT AN PROPERTY OF A PICTURE. OK? CLEAR? Yes?

            Uhm, no? DPI is very much a property of a picture. You can scream all you like, but that doesn't make it true. You see, while it doesn't really make a difference to a computer screen, it is incredibly important when you have plans to transfer a picture from that screen to a more tangible medium. The computer will faithfully draw one pixel next to the other and display as many of them simultaneously as possib

      • Re:Desktop Software (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sebi ( 152185 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @07:04PM (#6448318)
        After reading your first paragraph I wanted to reply with a hearty triple bullshit and be done with it. Turns out that your second paragraph contained a lot of truths.

        But what actually is the biggest truth is that Quark rules because of their document format and their document format alone. But they are their own worst enemy. Unpredictability combined with the closeness of the aforementioned document format and open hostility towards users has not made them many friends in the last years.

        Maybe the American market is radically different, but European publishers don't really only accept jobs in Photoshop or Illustrator. If it is a pixel graphic then send a TIFF, if it is a vector graphic, or a combination of the two then send an EPS. But for multi-page complex layouts there was no relatively generic format to rival what XPress coud do. But now we have PDF and the number of places unwilling to accept this format is dwindling.

        The publishing industry is starting to learn its lesson. The, as you so charmingly called them, ersatz programs are no longer non grata, but rather valid alternatives.

        The largest Austrian weekly does only accept advertisements in PDF format. If you request it, they will send you a nice and detailed multi-page guide on how to export your XPress files to the format. As an appendix there also is a single page explaining the same process for InDesign. Scribus seems to claim having a functional PDF export, which should be enough to get your designs to the printer.

        Now if you expect newcomers to replace XPress on the creation side of things then this is a different story. The places that have always used XPress might continue to always use XPress. But if a hot new agency can convince its designers to work on something different, they will be just as competitive. Maybe even more so. Because we are returning to the point where only creativity (and respect for budgets) matter. The choice of tools becomes irrelevant.
        • Maybe the American market is radically different, but European publishers don't really only accept jobs in Photoshop or Illustrator. If it is a pixel graphic then send a TIFF, if it is a vector graphic, or a combination of the two then send an EPS.

          Yup. The journals I've published in required me to send electronic copies of my figures in TIFF format, using CMYK colors. Actually, one of these was run by an American publisher.

      • Re:Desktop Software (Score:3, Informative)

        by Maimun ( 631984 )
        Hmm. I thought they (the publishers) would not care how the pdf/ps file is produced, as long as it conforms to the pdf/ps standard. No? Why do they need the software you used to do it?

        And, BTW, what about Latex? There are plenty of books (not just journal papers, but *books*) in Comp. Sci. and Mathematics that are typeset in Latex. I mean, high quality books, e.g. "Introduction to Algorithms" by Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest [mit.edu], or Modern Computer Algebra by von zur Gathen and Gerhard [uni-paderborn.de]. You cannot say they

      • PDF (Score:3, Informative)

        by Craig Ringer ( 302899 )
        Sorry man - find a better printer. The printer we deal with used to (reluctantly) accept Quark docs, but now won't talk to you unless you subit a PDF. Formats accepted: PDF, PDF, or PDF.

        More and more people are going that way. It doesn't matter what app produced the PDF so long as it's valid and compliant with your printer's specs. Services like QuickCut help clients submitting ads confirm this, and apps like PitStop are good for prepress houses sending jobs to their printers.

  • OS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    When you are talking that expensive of software, the price for the OS really doesn't make any difference.

  • Screenshots mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cee ( 22717 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:31PM (#6447542)
    Here [dsv.su.se].

  • things is moving (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lexcyber ( 133454 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:34PM (#6447559) Homepage
    Just a couple of weeks ago, we read about the release of ardour. A very competent audio-editing program. And now this. OSS is really emerging as the future for desktop content creation also, and not only server appliancies. And also the prop. software vendors are finding linux. (Maya 5 from Alias|Wavefront is availible for Linux). This is truely exiting times!

  • Eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:35PM (#6447569)
    I just use MS Paint. It's great.

  • One thing left (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) * <teamhasnoi@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:36PM (#6447578) Journal
    Gimp needs cmyk support. Or Adobe needs to get on the linux train and port Photoshop, Indesign and all the rest of those Unix-y OS X apps...

    That'd take like 10 minutes, tops.

    Otherwise, you still need a Win/Mac for source photos/graphics.

    • "Gimp needs cmyk support."

      It has it now. Edit in GIMP, suck image into Scribus, export CMYK. End of problem.

  • impressive... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fux the Pengiun ( 686240 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:37PM (#6447588)
    I checked out some of the new features from the site:
    • A modern user friendly interface developed with Qt. Scribus can run on Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, BSD and soon Mac OSX. An experimental version running on KDE-Cygwin and Windows 2000 is in testing.
    • Unicode support including support for right to left scripts.
    • Can export CMYK separations and "press-ready" PDF including PDF 1.4 features such as transparency.
    • The only DTP application to create fully ISO compliant PDF/X-3 files.
    • A powerful PDF export engine capable of creating fully interactive PDF forms, presentation effects and encrypted PDF.
    • ICC color management via the littlecms color management engine.
    • Extended Matrix e-business infomediaries capability
    • Exports high-quality PDF, SVG and EPS.
    • Powerful cross-platform Python Scripting language extending Scribus functions and automating tasks, as well as calling external applications within Scribus.
    • Maximize enterprise functionalities for web-serviced publishing
    • Uses XML as a native file format. The Scribus XML format has been fully documented
    Ummm...that's great and all, but I've been using Quark since version 3.8 (they're up to 6 now...just released it for the Mac), and it's been doing just about all of that since version 5.6.2. Scribus is a particularly poor choice if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content, where Quark has all those capabilities out of the box. I really, really, hope it can succeed, as I'd like to see more graphical programs on Linux besides just the Gump. They really need to just sell Quark for Linux, but they probably too wrapped up in the BSD port right now.

    • OT: can you translate? (Score:5, Funny)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:43PM (#6447633)
      if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content,

      What does that clause mean?

      Are you trying to make eugenically superior people even larger to do some task, or what?
      • Hanging out too much with the marketdroids at work will do that....the spew seems to rub off no matter how brief the encounter.

      • Re:OT: can you translate? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:19PM (#6447950)

        "Scribus is a particularly poor choice if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content"

        • Scale = climb on
        • Best-of-breed = well-bred, aristocratic, upper class
        • engage = agree to marry
        • pro = call girl
        • active = working
        • content = happy

        So, Don't use Scribus if you intend to climb over sombody who is using the services of an upper-class call girl who is happy in her job, in order to propose marriage.

        Warning: being self employed I haven't worked in a corporate environment for some time so I may not have a completely correct interpretation of this jargon.

      • if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content,

        What does that clause mean?

        "I can't think of anything meaningful to say."
      • if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content

        I think he's creating an army of mutated Uber publishers, with the goal of building mind altering billboards which turns all consumers into mindless consuming blobs that will eat griddle sandwiches stuffed with cheese and pig parts...... oh my god! The prophecy has come true..nooo...d.sa.d.d.s... . .

    • Re:impressive... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 680x0 ( 467210 )
      Are you sure Quark can do all that now? Even "can run on Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, BSD and [...]"?

      Even if so, Scribus has one feature I don't see Quark matching: It's free as well as being Open Source.

    • but I've been using Quark since version 3.8 (they're up to 6 now...just released it for the Mac), and it's been doing just about all of that since version 5.6.2

      It would be pretty stupid of them to implement features that Quark doesn't have, wouldn't it?

      if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content

      Lets run that through babelfish into German and then back again:

      if you try to classify, good-of-breed you users, in order to engage itself proactive contents

      The weird thing is
    • Scribus is a particularly poor choice if you're trying to scale best-of-breed users to engage proactive content

      Aaaargh, you had me until there. Good troll ;-)

  • Fonts and such (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djrisk ( 689742 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:39PM (#6447600)
    What is the availability of type faces on Linux? Part of the Mac's dominance in the DTP arena is that the type collection is so massive, and most converters don't do the fonts justice (in previous experiences, this held true, not sure if it's like that now). A strong offerring of type face compatibility as well as image capability (scanning/editing), would help users move to Linux for their DTP needs.
    • And looks great, at least on my Mandrake [geocities.com] system.

    • Re:Fonts and such (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alienw ( 585907 )
      You don't need to convert fonts. Most, if not all, fonts are either Adobe Type1 or TrueType/OpenType. Both are supported quite well without any conversion.

      The font problems that people are bitching about involve fonts that get displayed on the screen without antialiasing. These do look shitty unless they are specially made. Microsoft uses heavily hacked fonts, Apple simply antialiases them. Both options also work on Linux.

  • Eagh!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:42PM (#6447627) Journal

    I hope the slashdot effects cripples the graphics.com servers and sets them on fire in a glorious blaze of divine revenge! Take that for full screen popups!

    • Re:Eagh!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ncc74656 ( 45571 )
      I hope the slashdot effects cripples the graphics.com servers and sets them on fire in a glorious blaze of divine revenge! Take that for full screen popups!

      Ye shall know the lizard [mozilla.org], and the lizard shall set you free...

  • Compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eberlin ( 570874 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:42PM (#6447629) Homepage
    Will it be able to open quark and/or MS Publisher files for compatibility?

    Actually, is there an existing (native) open-source linux program that can open MS Pub files?

  • Cursor Positions? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tarquin_fim_bim ( 649994 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @05:50PM (#6447695)
    I noticed that they seem to be in inches. That may be OK for people stuck in the early 20th century, but what about the rest of us?

    • Re:Cursor Positions? (Score:2, Informative)

      by WWWWolf ( 2428 )

      No need to be stuck with inches. Scribus also does millimeters, picas, and points.

      Nobody would claim Scribus would be good enough to compete with Quark unless it woudld do mm and pt. Duh. It's like that CMYK thing.

      Next question, please?

  • $1000 is not much money if you're a serious (professional) user. Even if you're using it for non-profit work it's not a huge amount of money. The computer running it is probably more expensive.

    • Re:A grand (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cranos ( 592602 )
      Everything is relative, including the impact of prices. If you are earning six figures or even high five figure sums $1000 may not seem to be much, but for most of the world $1000 represents one hell of an investment.

      • Everything is relative, including the impact of prices. If you are earning six figures or even high five figure sums $1000 may not seem to be much, but for most of the world $1000 represents one hell of an investment.
        And if you're not doing professional design work, or working for an established non-profit that can get software discounts, you probably don't need a $1,000 piece of software to do your newsletters. As you say, everything is relative.

  • $1000 == $3/day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cwikla ( 557137 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:05PM (#6447842)
    I know a lot of people for whom Quark is the killer app that prevents them from moving to Linux, and most of them are tired of paying a grand for the privilege of using it.

    You have to be joking. Anyone who whines about the prices of these products probably uses it as a convenience, and not for critical work. If they did they wouldn't complain about the $1000, or the $3/day a year -- you know, that StarBucks latte they have every day -- to use it. I'm always amazed by software organizations that try to skimp on paying for tools because things "cost too much", and then make that tool an integral part of their process. Alot of programs fall into this arena of specialized software with high price tags and great at what they do (or at least some people find them great at what they do, I have no interest in debating what you or I think are great software): math software like Mathematica and MathCad, IDE's and other development tools for programmers, RoboHelp, PhotoShop, and on and on. These programs are NOT meant to be cheap programs for Joe Blow, they are meant to be specialized and essential tools for professionals, researchers, whatever, and due to how successfully they perform their task have very wide acceptance.

    Sure it's great when a free tool shows up that is just as good as another product. I love free tools. But if your work with such a tool doesn't justify the $3/day, you probably aren't the market they are shooting for.

    • Re:$1000 == $3/day (Score:3, Insightful)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 )
      Yes, but you're not buying 100 lattes the first day. And I seriously doubt most software stores allow you to finance a software purchase, even if it is a half-dozen copies of $1000 software. Coming up with that kind of cash up-front can be daunting to the smaller users..

    • Well, $4 per day, unless you work seven days a week. I usually work about 50 weeks per year and five days a week.
    • When Linux 1.0.0 debuted it certainly wasn't ready for that much of anything, except for hobbyists, etc. Years later with 2.6 on the horizon, we are seeing an environment where Linux is *far* easier to administrate than most of the commercial UNIX's. (Never mind all my Solaris frustration.) Same with Scribus. Remember GIMP 1.0?

      Scribus is a free tool that allows hobbyists and hackers to play with DTP and learn the field to some extent. Therefore the stable release which is good enough for some environ
    • Personally, I prefer a 75 cent cup of coffee at my local coffeehouse. $3 is a lot to pay each day for something as simple as coffee.

      I know people who do a one-week project (longer including collecting pictures and writing text, but a week of "publishing") each year. If you want it to come out nice, you need to give the printers a Quark file, but Quark is a big expense to justify for users who need Quark but not that frequently.

      I also know people who use Quark constantly. They're just tired of having Quark

  • FILE COMPATIBILITY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by exhilaration ( 587191 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:07PM (#6447856)
    A lot of people seem to be asking about how well Scribus imports Quark or InDesign files. First of all, there's almost no compatibility between commercial DTP file-formats. It's already been mentionned that InDesign doesn't do a very good job with PageMaker files, and there's almost no compatibility between Quark and InDesign. And it's not even worth discussing Publisher.

    So why should Scribus be held to a higher standard? If Adobe and Quark decided not to waste their time reverse-engineering the other's file formats, why should the OSS community? DTP requires such precision that a less-than-perfect conversion is useless.

    So if the developers are reading this, don't waste your time on import or export filters for other DTP file fomats!!!!!!

    • I would be interested to use this software as
      a replacement for Illustrator, because all I need
      is to format figures for scientific articles, so
      I need precise positioning, ability to add lines
      and arbitrarily rotated text, and above all else
      strong color management. That is all, and it looks
      like Scribus might just do it.
      Therefore: does it import .ai files (and these are
      rather standard with many software programs
      importing these just fine)? For that matter, does
      it import .eps and allow you to fragment the
      image in
    • A lot of people seem to be asking about how well Scribus imports Quark or InDesign files. First of all, there's almost no compatibility between commercial DTP file-formats. It's already been mentionned that InDesign doesn't do a very good job with PageMaker files, and there's almost no compatibility between Quark and InDesign. And it's not even worth discussing Publisher.

      So why should Scribus be held to a higher standard? If Adobe and Quark decided not to waste their time reverse-engineering the other'

  • FO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lechter ( 205925 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:13PM (#6447897)

    What would be really great would be if it would support graphical layout of Formatting Objects [w3.org]. I've checked out the available tools and they're unbelievably expensive, and not even very capable: little better than writing the formatting yourself. Something geared towards professional layout rather than simple web layout, or one page layout, would really help to advance this standard as well as the use of XML in general.

  • I've used Scribus before and absolutely love it - it might not be ready for DTP prime-time, but for anyone who likes both DTP and Linux it's a breeze to use and really quite powerful. The results are far better than any other publishing/composing app I've used on Linux, the interface is clean and straightforward, and the support from the development team and activity on the mailing lists is wonderful.

    Highly recommended - 5 stars, especially for a 1.0 release.

  • Mandrake Packages... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joestar ( 225875 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:18PM (#6447941) Homepage
    have been in Cooker [mandrakelinux.com] (RC?) for a while.
  • I know a lot of people for whom Quark is the killer app that prevents them from moving to Linux

    That makes it sound like moving to linux is a goal in itself. It is not. The goal is to use your computer for whatever work or play you need. I mean, if all you do with your computer is "run linux" or "run OSX" or "run windows", then you're not really doing anything useful with your computer, are you?

    • If you try to run Free Software instead of propietary stuff, you're:

      a) behaving from a certain philosophy;
      b) making a statement;
      c) probably saving money as well;
      d) vendor independent.

      <heh>
      That's:-

      a) Free as in Liberty
      b) Free as in Stallman
      c) Free as in Beer
      d) Free as in Jail
      </heh>

      So anyway, there is a point to attempt to run "Linux" (or whatever).
  • >them are tired of paying a grand for the >privilege of using it

    Gotta stop with comments like this. Don't like Quark, then don't use it. Don't like paying $1000, then your time is not worth much.
    There is give and take with software, if quark doesn't save you time and quality then use something cheaper.

    You make it sound like there a gun to the head of people using quark.

    With MS you have an argument, but I fail to see
    what your problem is with quark. Or maybe it is just any software you have to pay fo

  • I work in the industry... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by azpenguin ( 589022 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:44PM (#6448161)
    We use Quark at our newspaper, naturally. There's a few hundred licenses in the company. It is a damn expensive app. But consumables are even more expensive. We print directly to negatives, and film costs a good chunk of change. If there's a problem, we have to re-print the negs. If we have to re-plate, that's a bunch more money. If we don't know there's a problem till the press starts, there'll be hell to pay. Some papers are using new technology that lets them print directly to the printing plate. The materials for that are even more expensive. With Quark, we know what we're getting when we click "Print." $1000 may be expensive for a program, but we use more than that in film and plates every day. Quark Inc. isn't a very well liked company - but when you know what you're getting for sure in your finished product, that makes all the difference.

  • Linux DTP! Ohboyohboy! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Tuesday July 15, 2003 @06:44PM (#6448166) Homepage

    Maybe Scribus is currently ready for high-end DTP, maybe it isn't yet. Doesn't matter -- I am genuinely no-kidding pumped to see this. Whenever it is ready, I'll be one step closer to ditching my Windows box, where to date I have been shackled by PageMaker. Linux has LaTeX, but I don't need a document design program, I need pica-precision page layout. And I hear Wine is getting better at handlingPhotoshop too. Any year now....

    What's Scribus like for long-document support? I laid out a 192-page roleplaying game [dyingearth.com], and PageMaker 6.5-7.0 handled it pretty well -- not as well as FrameMaker, but better than Quark. So far as I can tell, it looks like Scribus is currently targeting a lower document range. But any year now (ohboyohboy)....

  • This is exactly the kind of app I was looking for just last week. But I found KWord which seems to fit nicely. KWord is mostly like MS Publisher, but it seems to be pretty buggy and crashes every now and then. But in terms of functionality, it has most of the stuff I need.
    Though I'll give Scribus a whirl, but aren't there any publishing programs that use GTK? I have Gnome2.2 and right now KWord is the only reason I have KDElibs on my computer.

  • Nitpicky about screen shots (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slantyyz ( 196624 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @12:45AM (#6450313)
    The screen shots of Scribus are impressive, but why is that every time I see a Linux app's screenshots, that the screen fonts just look amateurish? They just strike me as looking like Apple IIgs screen shots.

    Mac screenshots always seem to look the most polished (no, I'm not a Mac user), partly because of the timeless elegance of fonts like Chicago, Charcoal and whatever their font du jour is today. I even have to admit that even post-2K Windows screenshots look half decent.

    I know that Linux is skinnable, but why does it seem like all the linux developers choose screen fonts that will make their applications less polished? Of course, if you click through the link to see the Red Hat 8 + Keramic shots of Scribus, you'll see MUCH better looking screens. The bottom line -- you only get one chance to make a good first impression -- so why not have the better looking shots on the main page?

  • Won't compete on a pro-level (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bushboy ( 112290 ) <lttc@lefthandedmonkeys.org> on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @01:06AM (#6450382) Homepage
    There's no way it's going to be able to compete on an industry standard level, but on an amateur basis, it looks like a great program.

    On a side note, I'm not sure how long Quark will be an industry leader for - many former Quark users are have switched to InDesign due to the ridiculously long wait for Quark for MacOSX and many are considering switching (amongst the designers I know, anyway)

  • two problems... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2003 @05:19AM (#6451117) Homepage Journal
    First: using Quark is not a privelege, it's a royal pain in the ass. Nice UI, too bad about the rest of the app. It has NO document verification or error checking so it just dies if there's anything wrong with the document. (Admittedly this is v4, maybe v5/6 have helped this - but I doubt it). I called Quark support and mentioned some document corruption problems we were having when working on files stored on network volumes - their answer: "Don't use Quark on a network." It's so scary it's funny.

    Second: Try buying it in Australia. One grand US is ~AU$1500 ... but we pay $3500/copy because of an exclusive distributor arrangement. Quark won't support US copies in Australia, neither will Modulo Systems, the local distributor. Result: ripoff, consider InDesign. *sigh*.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Close