[scribus] Newbie Mac User

I'm betting the answer is "no" because Scribus works with X-Windows not
cocoa or whatever Mac's window manger is called.

Post by John Morris
Hi All,
I'm new to Scribus, but I have been doing DTP since about 1990. I really
like the basic layout of Scribus, with one exception. I'm a Mac user and I
don't like the whole window-within-a-window thing. Is there any way to
revert to normal Mac behavior?
I'm using Scribus 1.3.5 and Mac OS X 10.5.7 on a 2.6GHz MacBook Pro with
2GB of RAM and 2.6GB free on the boot drive.
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090731/46cef7e8/attachment.htm>

avox

2009-07-31 14:09:35 UTC

I'm betting the answer is "no" because Scribus works with X-Windows not
cocoa or whatever Mac's window manger is called.

You loose that bet. Scribus uses the Qt library which is based on Carbon on
OSX
(and the latest Qt version might even be based on Cocoa IIRC).

We will probably drop the multiple documents interface (MDI) for all
platforms in the next Scribus version.
I myself always use a single maximized child window inside the Scribus
window anyway.

/Andreas

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Newbie-Mac-User-tp24756349p24757074.html
Sent from the Scribus New mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

John Morris

2009-07-31 15:08:26 UTC

Thanks, Andreas, for giving me hope. I'll look forward to that
change in a future version. My problem with the MDI (I never new the
name before) is that I generally need to work with multiple windows
in each of several different applications. While I agree that it can
be done, it's not easy to set things up so I can see a good bit of
two or more Scribus documents while simultaneously giving myself
access to my browser, an email from a client, and a couple of other
windows. What do you do when you need to look at two Scribus
documents simultaneously?

Best,
John

Post by avox

Post by John Morris
Hi All,
I'm new to Scribus, but I have been doing DTP since about 1990. I really
like the basic layout of Scribus, with one exception. I'm a Mac user and
I don't like the whole window-within-a-window thing. Is there any way to
revert to normal Mac behavior?
I'm using Scribus 1.3.5 and Mac OS X 10.5.7 on a 2.6GHz MacBook Pro with
2GB of RAM and 2.6GB free on the boot drive.
Thanks,
John

I'm betting the answer is "no" because Scribus works with X-Windows not
cocoa or whatever Mac's window manger is called.

You loose that bet. Scribus uses the Qt library which is based on Carbon on
OSX (and the latest Qt version might even be based on Cocoa IIRC).
We will probably drop the multiple documents interface (MDI) for all
platforms in the next Scribus version.
I myself always use a single maximized child window inside the Scribus
window anyway.
/Andreas

"Sveinn í Felli (IMAP)"

2009-07-31 17:45:08 UTC

Hi John,

Thanks, Andreas, for giving me hope. I'll look forward to that change
in a future version. My problem with the MDI (I never new the name
before) is that I generally need to work with multiple windows in each
of several different applications. While I agree that it can be done,
it's not easy to set things up so I can see a good bit of two or more
Scribus documents while simultaneously giving myself access to my
browser, an email from a client, and a couple of other windows. What do
you do when you need to look at two Scribus documents simultaneously?

Don't know how your Mac window manager treats Scribus
windows, but normally there should be 3 buttons in upper
right corner of the (Scribus) application window;
'Minimize', 'Restore down' and 'Close', respectively from
left to right. Those buttons are 'document-window-specific'
and should not be confused with the similar
'application-specific-ones' often above them (but last time
I used a Mac they were in the upper-left corner). By holding
the mouse pointer over them you should see their names in a
tooltip frame.
'Restore down' permits resizing multiple document windows
inside of the main (Scribus) application window.

Maybe I should not add this; I use a windowing system where
I can define as many 'Desktops' as I like; one for IRC and
E-mail and such, another for webbrowser and FTP-client,
third for managing local files and such, and a
fourth/fifth/sixth for graphical work. I can switch quickly
between desktops either vith a mouseclick or a keyboard
shortcut.
My systems are Linuxes; there must be a way to do multiple
desktops on a Mac?

Cheers

Sveinn ? Felli

Post by avox

Post by John Morris
Hi All,
I'm new to Scribus, but I have been doing DTP since about 1990. I really
like the basic layout of Scribus, with one exception. I'm a Mac
user and
I don't like the whole window-within-a-window thing. Is there any
way to
revert to normal Mac behavior?
I'm using Scribus 1.3.5 and Mac OS X 10.5.7 on a 2.6GHz MacBook Pro with
2GB of RAM and 2.6GB free on the boot drive.
Thanks,
John

I'm betting the answer is "no" because Scribus works with X-Windows not
cocoa or whatever Mac's window manger is called.

You loose that bet. Scribus uses the Qt library which is based on Carbon on
OSX (and the latest Qt version might even be based on Cocoa IIRC).
We will probably drop the multiple documents interface (MDI) for all
platforms in the next Scribus version.
I myself always use a single maximized child window inside the Scribus
window anyway.
/Andreas

_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

John Beardmore

2009-07-31 17:54:37 UTC

Post by "Sveinn Ã Felli (IMAP)"
My systems are Linuxes; there must be a way to do multiple
desktops on a Mac?

Or indeed a good one on windows ?

Cheers, J/.

--
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Energy Audit, Carbon Management, Design Advice, Sustainable Energy
Consultancy and Installation, Carbon Trust Standard Registered Assessor
Phone: 0845 4561332 Mobile: 07785 563116 Skype: t4sustainability

Gregory Pittman

2009-07-31 18:16:31 UTC

Post by "Sveinn Ã Felli (IMAP)"
My systems are Linuxes; there must be a way to do multiple
desktops on a Mac?

Or indeed a good one on windows ?

My guess is we won't see anything until there is a working KDE port.

Greg

a.l.e

2009-07-31 18:43:41 UTC

hi sveinn,

Post by "Sveinn Ã Felli (IMAP)"
Don't know how your Mac window manager treats Scribus
windows, but normally there should be 3 buttons in upper
right corner of the (Scribus) application window;
'Minimize', 'Restore down' and 'Close', respectively from
left to right. Those buttons are 'document-window-specific'
and should not be confused with the similar
'application-specific-ones' often above them (but last time
I used a Mac they were in the upper-left corner). By holding
the mouse pointer over them you should see their names in a
tooltip frame.
'Restore down' permits resizing multiple document windows
inside of the main (Scribus) application window.

well, yes but... well... i support the idea of a SDI (or non-MDI) scribus, since my window manager does a wonderful job in managing the windows if their are freed from the application!

most mac users also think that way.

and most modern GUI apps work that way.

still, the suggestions with the buttons in the bar works for the meantime...

Post by "Sveinn Ã Felli (IMAP)"
My systems are Linuxes; there must be a way to do multiple
desktops on a Mac?

there is one and it has 3D effects...

ciao
a.l.e

John Morris

2009-07-31 19:01:09 UTC

Hi Sveninin,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My basic response is, Yes, I can
do that, but that is not what I want to do. Read on for the details
if you are interested.

Yes, those buttons are available in Scribus in the upper left-hand
corner, where they are in just about every Mac application. While the
tool-tips don't show (they do for the toolbar buttons), they are not
needed because these buttons' functions are familiar across the
interface.
However, these buttons don't help much with what I want to do. I
don't just want to jump from one application to another or from one
set of applications to another set. I need access to all my
applications all the time in as flexible a way as possible.
Sometimes I need to see a client's email message while working on a
layout document. Sometimes I need to see a Word document while
marking up a PDF file. Sometimes I need to see two layout documents
at the same time while referring to a couple of email messages as
well as a drawing in illustrator and an image in Photoshop. Those are
the simple cases and it gets much more complicated from there.
Aside from the wasted screen real estate of the extra window title
bar, my main problem with the whole MDI is that it puts an opaque
background behind all my Scribus windows. That means I can't arrange
the Scribus windows in a nonrectangular fashion in order to see the
little bit of an email message that I need behind those windows. If
the main Scribus window were completely transparent where no windows
and no toolbars appeared, I could just maximize the window and treat
it as if it had toolbars outside the windows. That has worked fairly
well for me in other applications.
For what it's worth, I don't really like Apple's new system of
packing large toolbars at the top of each window. What a waste of
space, I would much rather have a single toolbar with small icons
that I can move independently of the window and can serve multiple
windows. The one saving grace is that I can quickly hide the toolbar
with a click on the button at the right edge of the title bar.
Unfortunately, only some developers understand that I would do this
to increase the size of the content area _of that window_ and so they
shrink the whole window when I hide the toolbar.

Post by "Sveinn Ã Felli (IMAP)"
Maybe I should not add this; I use a windowing system where
I can define as many 'Desktops' as I like; one for IRC and
E-mail and such, another for webbrowser and FTP-client,
third for managing local files and such, and a
fourth/fifth/sixth for graphical work. I can switch quickly
between desktops either vith a mouseclick or a keyboard
shortcut.
My systems are Linuxes; there must be a way to do multiple
desktops on a Mac?

I've not used Linux in any serious way, but I imagine this is
similar to Spaces in Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). As I understand it, it
works reasonably well with well-behaved applications. However, I have
heard that most versions of MS Office do not support Spaces very
well. I don't use Spaces at all; my life is not that cut and dry.
There is no one set of applications that I will be using to the
exclusion of others such that I would ever want to make any of them
less accessible.
I primarily get around by closing windows I don't need any more,
hiding the applications I'm not using immediately, switching
applications with command-Tab (similar to Ctrl-Tab in Windows and I'm
sure Linux has an equivalent) and moving windows around when I need
to see several from different applications.

I would like to make the switch from Macintosh to a good Linux
distribution because I like Apple's choices less and less these days.
However, the Mac OS is deeply embedded in my life and I don't have
much time to explore other options these days. I imagine that the Mac
OS will continue to be my main OS for at least the next five years.

Best,
John

John Culleton

2009-08-01 13:31:59 UTC

Post by John Morris
Hi Sveninin,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My basic response is, Yes, I
can do that, but that is not what I want to do. Read on for the
details if you are interested.

Yes, those buttons are available in Scribus in the upper
left-hand corner, where they are in just about every Mac
application. While the tool-tips don't show (they do for the
toolbar buttons), they are not needed because these buttons'
functions are familiar across the interface.
However, these buttons don't help much with what I want to do.
I don't just want to jump from one application to another or from
one set of applications to another set. I need access to all my
applications all the time in as flexible a way as possible.
Sometimes I need to see a client's email message while working on
a layout document. Sometimes I need to see a Word document while
marking up a PDF file. Sometimes I need to see two layout
documents at the same time while referring to a couple of email
messages as well as a drawing in illustrator and an image in
Photoshop. Those are the simple cases and it gets much more
complicated from there. Aside from the wasted screen real estate
of the extra window title bar, my main problem with the whole MDI
is that it puts an opaque background behind all my Scribus
windows. That means I can't arrange the Scribus windows in a
nonrectangular fashion in order to see the little bit of an email
message that I need behind those windows. If the main Scribus
window were completely transparent where no windows and no
toolbars appeared, I could just maximize the window and treat it
as if it had toolbars outside the windows. That has worked fairly
well for me in other applications.
For what it's worth, I don't really like Apple's new system of
packing large toolbars at the top of each window. What a waste of
space, I would much rather have a single toolbar with small icons
that I can move independently of the window and can serve
multiple windows. The one saving grace is that I can quickly hide
the toolbar with a click on the button at the right edge of the
title bar. Unfortunately, only some developers understand that I
would do this to increase the size of the content area _of that
window_ and so they shrink the whole window when I hide the
toolbar.

I've not used Linux in any serious way, but I imagine this is
similar to Spaces in Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). As I understand it,
it works reasonably well with well-behaved applications. However,
I have heard that most versions of MS Office do not support
Spaces very well. I don't use Spaces at all; my life is not that
cut and dry. There is no one set of applications that I will be
using to the exclusion of others such that I would ever want to
make any of them less accessible.
I primarily get around by closing windows I don't need any
more, hiding the applications I'm not using immediately,
switching applications with command-Tab (similar to Ctrl-Tab in
Windows and I'm sure Linux has an equivalent) and moving windows
around when I need to see several from different applications.
I would like to make the switch from Macintosh to a good Linux
distribution because I like Apple's choices less and less these
days. However, the Mac OS is deeply embedded in my life and I
don't have much time to explore other options these days. I
imagine that the Mac OS will continue to be my main OS for at
least the next five years.
Best,
John

I have four switchable desktops, each one measuring 1280 x 1024. I
usually run a 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 viewport into the current
desktop and ramble around on the larger desktop with the mouse.
I can switch between desktops with one detent rotation of the mouse
wheel on empty space.

Once you try Linux you are spoiled for anything else.

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

Tornóci László

2009-08-01 14:21:12 UTC

Post by John Culleton
I have four switchable desktops, each one measuring 1280 x 1024. I
usually run a 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 viewport into the current
desktop and ramble around on the larger desktop with the mouse.
I can switch between desktops with one detent rotation of the mouse
wheel on empty space.
Once you try Linux you are spoiled for anything else.

Same here, except with a dual monitor setup each desktop is 2x1280x1024.
That's even better for scribus, and it is not very expensive nowadays. I
put the main window on the left monitor, and all the other bits I need
all the time (properties, layers, align) to the right one. One annoying
thing though: every time I start Scribus, all the small windows are
piled up on the left monitor, I need to drag them to the right before I
start working.

Yours: Laszlo

John Morris

2009-08-01 16:19:28 UTC

Post by John Culleton
I have four switchable desktops, each one measuring 1280 x 1024. I
usually run a 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 viewport into the current
desktop and ramble around on the larger desktop with the mouse.???
I can switch between desktops with one detent rotation of the mouse
wheel on empty space.

I'm sure that works very well for you, but it
is very different from my workspace. Over the
years, I have gradually worked my way up to a
larger and larger desktop and each step has been
better than the last. I currently work with
1920x1200.* For those times when my main monitor
is not big enough, I run a second monitor that
has also grown over the years. It is currently at
1900x1440. Running that second monitor all the
time has always felt too extravagant, so it only
comes on a few times a month.
I doubt that I fully understand what you mean
by a "800 x 600 viewport into the current
desktop," but I think I get the basic idea. I
also doubt that I would be at all happy rambling
around such a small window on the desktop. I
suspect that this would be similar to zooming in
on my current desktop and then moving around with
the mouse. I occasionally do that for fine work
or to read especially small print. I have even
considered using that as my main desktop, but
never seriously. As I said before, I like having
everything available on a large desktop.

Post by John Culleton
One annoying thing though: every time I start
Scribus, all the small windows are piled up on
the left monitor, I need to drag them to the
right before I start working.

That would be annoying, probably enough so that
I would find a different way to arrange things. I
have not yet tried this on my system, so I don't
know how it would work.

John

*Ironically, my current desktop is a step down
from the last, which was 1920x1440. I made this
step because I could get it in a laptop and
because it appears that if I ever make the leap
to an LCD monitor, it will probably be running at
1920x1200. For environmental reasons I really
like using the laptop as my main machine; the
loss of 240 pixels is a small price to pay to
save 300 KWHr a year.

John Culleton

2009-08-01 18:09:31 UTC

Post by John Morris

Post by John Culleton
I have four switchable desktops, each one measuring 1280 x 1024.
I usually run a 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 viewport into the
current desktop and ramble around on the larger desktop with
the mouse. I can switch between desktops with one detent
rotation of the mouse wheel on empty space.

When your eyes are as old as mine, you may reconsider:<)

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-01 14:58:29 UTC

Oh, dear, you've opened the door...

<disclaimer>I am a Linux whacko. However, I mean "whacko" in the sense that
I am whacko nuts about Linux, not that I am a whacko zealot about other
people's OS choice. I will, however, try to convince people to use Linux at
the drop of a hat.</disclaimer>

So,if you are used to Mac OS X, and, more importantly, *like* Mac OS X, it
is very possible that you will not like Linux at all. Also, if you are
deeply entrenched -- with apps, mostly -- into Mac OS or Windows, say, then
it can be quite difficult in the short term to switch to anything else, let
alone to Linux.

So this is going to be a non-linear rambling about the pros and cons.

With Linux, there is, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation. A lot of OLD
information, a lot of FUD, a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons. So lets
try to get a couple of things out of the way.

- Ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2 years.
- Try to stick to one distribution, and ignore comparisons or descriptions
of others, for the time being. I suggest Ubuntu, or, possibly even better,
Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++, but is just a bit less well known. I'm
going to start saying "Ubuntu" in the rest of this diatribe.
- Ignore any descriptions or comparisons involving the *installation and
setup* phase. This, IMO, is one of the biggest points of FUD about Linux.
The point that is most often missed is that Mac OS and Windows users *don't
ever install their OS*. Also, this phase is either going to be insanely
easy, or next to impossible. 95% of new uesrs will actually find it to be
*insanely easy*.
- Ubuntu is just plain different in the way it is put together. It is not
so different, though, at, a 30 thousand foot level. Point, click, mousy
mousy, window window -- all modern OSes are basically the same. But the
subtle differences will be frustrating at first. It doesn't make Ubuntu
harder to use, just different, much like riding a motorcycle is not harder
than a car[1], just different. Okay, not a motorcycle, say, a manual
transmission vs an automatic one. That's probably a better analogy.

Ok, so, step number 1: throw out all your old apps. Just forget they even
exist, they will not work, period.

That's probably the hardest step. If you cannot get over that hurdle, then
stop right there.

Step two: try before you buy. Download Ubuntu live CD and try it. It won't
install anything or mess up your current computer, but you will be able to
preview a fully functional Ubuntu desktop.

Step 3: find an old computer to install it on, or try dual boot

The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of free apps, of
which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps on
your current OS. The GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, Firefox, and MANY other
"standard" Ubuntu apps have MAc OS or Windows ports. Hey, I said this was
non-linear.

Speaking of non-linear, I have a nozzle platypus hose beam. Yachting
prospectus?

Okay, thank you, and have a good night. Seeya.

Post by John Morris
I would like to make the switch from Macintosh to a good Linux
distribution because I like Apple's choices less and less these days.
However, the Mac OS is deeply embedded in my life and I don't have much time
to explore other options these days. I imagine that the Mac OS will continue
to be my main OS for at least the next five years.
Best,
John
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

[1] Well, ok, it is harder than a car.

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090801/32c1352b/attachment.htm>

John Morris

2009-08-01 18:01:43 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Oh, dear, you've opened the door...
<disclaimer>I am a Linux whacko. However, I mean "whacko" in the sense that
I am whacko nuts about Linux, not that I am a whacko zealot about other
people's OS choice. I will, however, try to convince people to use Linux at
the drop of a hat.</disclaimer>

Thanks for your thoughts, Jeffery; they are very much appreciated.
I'll give you some feedback on your presentation and my personal
situation below, but here is my main response. The biggest issue that
is keeping me from migrating to Linux is time. I'm way too busy with
my noncomputer life to spend much time on computer issues. The fact
that I should "ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2
years," which is in line with my understanding, is telling. I need
much more stability than that gives me. Apple's schedule of new
versions is too fast for me and I usually don't make the switch right
away. For example, I bought Tiger about a year after it came out and
then it took me a year to migrate my production machine to it. It
just does not get prioritized around here.
The other issue that is keeping me from migrating to Linux is that
I'm the main source of computer support for many of my family
members. That keeps me busy, but it also means that, if I do switch,
I'll still be supporting them on Macs for at least some time even if
I can eventually get them to switch to Linux. That will complicate my
life, not simplify it.
So, like I said, I see myself using a reasonably current Mac OS for
at least the next five years on my main production machine. In that
time, I hope to slowly migrate to more and more OS apps in
preparation for an eventual switch and perhaps even install a Linux
distribution on a spare machine, a virtual machine, or as a dual
boot. (Speaking of virtual machines, I would really like to find one
that will run a current Mac OS client installation. I know that
Parallels will run Leopard Server, but that is not much use to me.)

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
So,if you are used to Mac OS X, and, more importantly, *like* Mac OS X, it
is very possible that you will not like Linux at all.

I do *like* the Mac OS. I've been using it since 1984 and have
grown very comfortable with it. However, as I mentioned before, I
don't like some aspects of it. My main issue is all the extra
gratuitous graphics, the cutesy buttons and the useless 3-D effects
that do nothing to enhance my experience as a user. I don't like
these things from a minimalist perspective and I don't like them from
my frugal New England perspective. (Why waste CRU on *that*?)
I also don't like Apple's habit of making choices for me and then
making it very difficult for me to choose a different path. Apple's
unspoken motto use to be "Have it your way," now it is "Have it our
way." Unfortunately, Apple's way is less and less my way. That means
I have to spend more and more time figuring out how to and then
implementing the changes I need to make my computer work the way I
want it to work.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Also, if you are
deeply entrenched -- with apps, mostly -- into Mac OS or Windows, say, then
it can be quite difficult in the short term to switch to anything else, let
alone to Linux.

This is also certainly an issue. The main reason it is an issue is
that I am a freelance editor by trade. Over 90% of my clients use
Word. The fact that I use a Mac and most of my clients use Windows is
already occasionally a problem, but I have found ways around it. I
have tried a number of OS word processors and found them to be of
varying quality, some very good and, of course, most much better than
Word. However, I have found none that can reliably read a complex
Word document, edit it, and write back to the file something that
will be reliably read by Word 2000 though Word 2008. That's a tall
order that Word is barely able to (not) fill, so I'm not surprised
that the OS offerings are not up to the task.
I suspect that as long as I'm in my current line of work, I will
need access to Word. I'm hoping that some day that access will be
through virtualization, hence my search for Mac OS virtualization
because I certainly don't want to step down to Windows. On a positive
note, I do have a number of regular clients using LaTeX, which would
is well supported on all platforms.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2 years.

As I mentioned above, this is an awfully short time frame for me
these days. That worries me because I don't like feeling as if I
*have* to upgrade to the next latest and greatest. I'm looking for
more stability, not less.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Try to stick to one distribution, and ignore comparisons or descriptions
of others, for the time being. I suggest Ubuntu, or, possibly even better,
Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++, but is just a bit less well known. I'm
going to start saying "Ubuntu" in the rest of this diatribe.

I can certainly understand the basic idea of sticking to one
distribution. However, that is a minor part of what is holding me
back. First, if I move to another operating system, I'm making an
investment in that platform. If that platform then falls by the
wayside, I've lost my investment, perhaps before it pays me dividends
in the form of a more stable platform to do my work. Therefore, I
have to choose carefully and I don't necessarily feel qualified to
make that choice yet.
Second, I am not a run-of-the-mill user. Therefore, I can't expect
to be happy with the default advice. I need to evaluate all my
option, both for the expected longevity of the platform and for its
user interface elements. That evaluation will take time, which is
also holding me back.
I would really like to find a comparison of the different
distributions that would help me make that choice, but I understand
that it is likely to be out of date before I find it.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ignore any descriptions or comparisons involving the *installation and
setup* phase. This, IMO, is one of the biggest points of FUD about Linux.
The point that is most often missed is that Mac OS and Windows users *don't
ever install their OS*. Also, this phase is either going to be insanely
easy, or next to impossible. 95% of new uesrs will actually find it to be
*insanely easy*.

So far, most of the OS software I have installed has been in the
insanely easy category. Despite my programming experience in a past
life, I have almost no experience with actually compiling source code
on a modern platform, yet I even found the installation of rsync from
the sources to be extremely straightforward.
However, installation and setup does not scare me. I expect to do
it once a year or every other year, so the investment is relatively
small even if it takes a day or two.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ubuntu is just plain different in the way it is put together. It is not
so different, though, at, a 30 thousand foot level. Point, click, mousy
mousy, window window -- all modern OSes are basically the same. But the
subtle differences will be frustrating at first. It doesn't make Ubuntu
harder to use, just different, much like riding a motorcycle is not harder
than a car[1], just different. Okay, not a motorcycle, say, a manual
transmission vs an automatic one. That's probably a better analogy.

This seems par for the course. Mac OS X is different from Mac
Classic is different from Windows 98 is different from Windows XP is
different from NeXt is different from Amiga OS. My limited experience
with Linux suggests to me that the magnitude of the differences
between it and what I have experienced is not greater that of the
differences between what I have experienced. The devil is in the
details. I expect to be frustrated by those subtle differences, but I
also expect to be rewarded for my efforts in the form of a desktop
that is more to my liking and does not require a near constant
(meaning more than every two years) upgrade cycle.
I do have to admit that I thought your motorcycle analogy was more
on the ticket. To give you an idea of the level of stability I would
like to see, I "upgrade" my car about every ten years and I don't
feel in the interim that I'm missing out in any major way. I *never*
upgrade my telephone and it keeps right on working through all the
changes that have been made to the national telephone system.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Ok, so, step number 1: throw out all your old apps. Just forget they even
exist, they will not work, period.

As you suggest below, I am already in the process of migrating to
OS applications in preparation of the day when I am able to make the
switch. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, my main income-producing
application does not appear to be replaceable.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Step two: try before you buy. Download Ubuntu live CD and try it. It won't
install anything or mess up your current computer, but you will be able to
preview a fully functional Ubuntu desktop.
Step 3: find an old computer to install it on, or try dual boot

I suspect that I will combine these two steps through
virtualization. Given the heavy dependance of modern operating
systems on virtual memory and the abysmal performance of optical
drives compared to hard drives, I don't think a live CD would give me
a fair test of what it is like to work with Linux. Even
virtualization involves a performance hit, but it is a good first
step and does not require that I completely take over my computer
with Linux by booting from an external hard drive or a partition.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of free apps, of
which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps on
your current OS. The GIMP, Inkscape, Scribus, Firefox, and MANY other
"standard" Ubuntu apps have MAc OS or Windows ports. Hey, I said this was
non-linear.

Yes. This has been a godsend for me. The fact that I have been able
to install small bits of "Linux" on my current machine has been part
of the reason that I'm even willing to consider a full Linux
installation. It's really a brilliant marketing ploy.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Speaking of non-linear, I have a nozzle platypus hose beam. Yachting
prospectus?

OK, I can admit that I have not a clue what this means.

Best,
John

John Culleton

2009-08-01 18:39:50 UTC

Post by John Morris

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Oh, dear, you've opened the door...
<disclaimer>I am a Linux whacko. However, I mean "whacko" in the
sense that I am whacko nuts about Linux, not that I am a whacko
zealot about other people's OS choice. I will, however, try to
convince people to use Linux at the drop of a hat.</disclaimer>

Thanks for your thoughts, Jeffery; they are very much
appreciated. I'll give you some feedback on your presentation and
my personal situation below, but here is my main response. The
biggest issue that is keeping me from migrating to Linux is time.
I'm way too busy with my noncomputer life to spend much time on
computer issues. The fact that I should "ignore any description
of Linux that is older than 2 years," which is in line with my
understanding, is telling. I need much more stability than that
gives me. Apple's schedule of new versions is too fast for me and
I usually don't make the switch right away. For example, I bought
Tiger about a year after it came out and then it took me a year
to migrate my production machine to it. It just does not get
prioritized around here.
The other issue that is keeping me from migrating to Linux is
that I'm the main source of computer support for many of my
family members. That keeps me busy, but it also means that, if I
do switch, I'll still be supporting them on Macs for at least
some time even if I can eventually get them to switch to Linux.
That will complicate my life, not simplify it.
So, like I said, I see myself using a reasonably current Mac
OS for at least the next five years on my main production
machine. In that time, I hope to slowly migrate to more and more
OS apps in preparation for an eventual switch and perhaps even
install a Linux distribution on a spare machine, a virtual
machine, or as a dual boot. (Speaking of virtual machines, I
would really like to find one that will run a current Mac OS
client installation. I know that Parallels will run Leopard
Server, but that is not much use to me.)

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
So,if you are used to Mac OS X, and, more importantly, *like*
Mac OS X, it is very possible that you will not like Linux at
all.

I do *like* the Mac OS. I've been using it since 1984 and have
grown very comfortable with it. However, as I mentioned before, I
don't like some aspects of it. My main issue is all the extra
gratuitous graphics, the cutesy buttons and the useless 3-D
effects that do nothing to enhance my experience as a user. I
don't like these things from a minimalist perspective and I don't
like them from my frugal New England perspective. (Why waste CRU
on *that*?) I also don't like Apple's habit of making choices for
me and then making it very difficult for me to choose a different
path. Apple's unspoken motto use to be "Have it your way," now it
is "Have it our way." Unfortunately, Apple's way is less and less
my way. That means I have to spend more and more time figuring
out how to and then implementing the changes I need to make my
computer work the way I want it to work.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Also, if you are
deeply entrenched -- with apps, mostly -- into Mac OS or
Windows, say, then it can be quite difficult in the short term
to switch to anything else, let alone to Linux.

This is also certainly an issue. The main reason it is an
issue is that I am a freelance editor by trade. Over 90% of my
clients use Word. The fact that I use a Mac and most of my
clients use Windows is already occasionally a problem, but I have
found ways around it. I have tried a number of OS word processors
and found them to be of varying quality, some very good and, of
course, most much better than Word. However, I have found none
that can reliably read a complex Word document, edit it, and
write back to the file something that will be reliably read by
Word 2000 though Word 2008. That's a tall order that Word is
barely able to (not) fill, so I'm not surprised that the OS
offerings are not up to the task.
I suspect that as long as I'm in my current line of work, I
will need access to Word. I'm hoping that some day that access
will be through virtualization, hence my search for Mac OS
virtualization because I certainly don't want to step down to
Windows. On a positive note, I do have a number of regular
clients using LaTeX, which would is well supported on all
platforms.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2 years.

As I mentioned above, this is an awfully short time frame for
me these days. That worries me because I don't like feeling as if
I *have* to upgrade to the next latest and greatest. I'm looking
for more stability, not less.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Try to stick to one distribution, and ignore comparisons or
descriptions of others, for the time being. I suggest Ubuntu,
or, possibly even better, Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++,
but is just a bit less well known. I'm going to start saying
"Ubuntu" in the rest of this diatribe.

I can certainly understand the basic idea of sticking to one
distribution. However, that is a minor part of what is holding me
back. First, if I move to another operating system, I'm making an
investment in that platform. If that platform then falls by the
wayside, I've lost my investment, perhaps before it pays me
dividends in the form of a more stable platform to do my work.
Therefore, I have to choose carefully and I don't necessarily
feel qualified to make that choice yet.
Second, I am not a run-of-the-mill user. Therefore, I can't
expect to be happy with the default advice. I need to evaluate
all my option, both for the expected longevity of the platform
and for its user interface elements. That evaluation will take
time, which is also holding me back.
I would really like to find a comparison of the different
distributions that would help me make that choice, but I
understand that it is likely to be out of date before I find it.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ignore any descriptions or comparisons involving the
*installation and setup* phase. This, IMO, is one of the
biggest points of FUD about Linux. The point that is most often
missed is that Mac OS and Windows users *don't ever install
their OS*. Also, this phase is either going to be insanely
easy, or next to impossible. 95% of new uesrs will actually
find it to be *insanely easy*.

So far, most of the OS software I have installed has been in
the insanely easy category. Despite my programming experience in
a past life, I have almost no experience with actually compiling
source code on a modern platform, yet I even found the
installation of rsync from the sources to be extremely
straightforward.
However, installation and setup does not scare me. I expect to
do it once a year or every other year, so the investment is
relatively small even if it takes a day or two.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ubuntu is just plain different in the way it is put
together. It is not so different, though, at, a 30 thousand
foot level. Point, click, mousy mousy, window window -- all
modern OSes are basically the same. But the subtle differences
will be frustrating at first. It doesn't make Ubuntu harder to
use, just different, much like riding a motorcycle is not
harder than a car[1], just different. Okay, not a motorcycle,
say, a manual transmission vs an automatic one. That's probably
a better analogy.

This seems par for the course. Mac OS X is different from Mac
Classic is different from Windows 98 is different from Windows XP
is different from NeXt is different from Amiga OS. My limited
experience with Linux suggests to me that the magnitude of the
differences between it and what I have experienced is not greater
that of the differences between what I have experienced. The
devil is in the details. I expect to be frustrated by those
subtle differences, but I also expect to be rewarded for my
efforts in the form of a desktop that is more to my liking and
does not require a near constant (meaning more than every two
years) upgrade cycle.
I do have to admit that I thought your motorcycle analogy was
more on the ticket. To give you an idea of the level of stability
I would like to see, I "upgrade" my car about every ten years and
I don't feel in the interim that I'm missing out in any major
way. I *never* upgrade my telephone and it keeps right on working
through all the changes that have been made to the national
telephone system.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Ok, so, step number 1: throw out all your old apps. Just forget
they even exist, they will not work, period.

As you suggest below, I am already in the process of migrating
to OS applications in preparation of the day when I am able to
make the switch. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, my main
income-producing application does not appear to be replaceable.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Step two: try before you buy. Download Ubuntu live CD and try
it. It won't install anything or mess up your current computer,
but you will be able to preview a fully functional Ubuntu
desktop.
Step 3: find an old computer to install it on, or try dual boot

I suspect that I will combine these two steps through
virtualization. Given the heavy dependance of modern operating
systems on virtual memory and the abysmal performance of optical
drives compared to hard drives, I don't think a live CD would
give me a fair test of what it is like to work with Linux. Even
virtualization involves a performance hit, but it is a good first
step and does not require that I completely take over my computer
with Linux by booting from an external hard drive or a partition.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of
migrate to all free apps on your current OS. The GIMP,
Inkscape, Scribus, Firefox, and MANY other "standard" Ubuntu
apps have MAc OS or Windows ports. Hey, I said this was
non-linear.

Yes. This has been a godsend for me. The fact that I have been
able to install small bits of "Linux" on my current machine has
been part of the reason that I'm even willing to consider a full
Linux installation. It's really a brilliant marketing ploy.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Speaking of non-linear, I have a nozzle platypus hose beam.
Yachting prospectus?

OK, I can admit that I have not a clue what this means.
Best,
John
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

If you use a self loading Linux cdr such as Knoppix (Debian) or
Slax (Slackware) your "hard disk" is really main memory and after
the 2.5 mins initial load time things run faster, not slower. And
I don't believe you need to "ignore all descriptions more then two
years old." I still use my Coherent Manual from the 90's as a
reference to the standard utilities found on any 'nix system.

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-01 18:50:50 UTC

<snip!>
If you use a self loading Linux cdr such as Knoppix (Debian) or
Slax (Slackware) your "hard disk" is really main memory and after
the 2.5 mins initial load time things run faster, not slower. And
I don't believe you need to "ignore all descriptions more then two
years old." I still use my Coherent Manual from the 90's as a
reference to the standard utilities found on any 'nix system.
--
John Culleton

I was intentionally using hyperbole and oversimplification (or are those
mutually exclusive) in several points in my rant.

My point on the "ignore descriptions over 2 years old" was pertaining to
over-two-year-old reviews, analysis, and comparison of Linux distros to
other OSes. NOT documentation of key system components. Those are quite
different things, methinks.

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090801/913220a6/attachment.htm>

John Morris

2009-08-01 18:49:27 UTC

Post by John Culleton
If you use a self loading Linux cdr such as Knoppix (Debian) or
Slax (Slackware) your "hard disk" is really main memory and after
the 2.5 mins initial load time things run faster, not slower.

Thanks for setting me straight on this. I'll keep it in mind as I
move forward.

Post by John Culleton
And
I don't believe you need to "ignore all descriptions more then two
years old." I still use my Coherent Manual from the 90's as a
reference to the standard utilities found on any 'nix system.

I don't doubt that you are right; many of the things I learned
about the Macintosh are still valid today. However, I suspect that
Jeffrey's point is still valid. The 'nix universe is moving quickly,
as is the rest of the computer universe. Unfortunately, they are both
moving a bit fast for my comfort.

John

John Beardmore

2009-08-03 00:52:33 UTC

... The biggest issue that is
keeping me from migrating to Linux is time. I'm way too busy with my
noncomputer life to spend much time on computer issues. The fact that I
should "ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2 years,"
which is in line with my understanding, is telling. I need much more
stability than that gives me.

OS releases come and go. That doesn't mean you have to slaveishly
install them all.

I tend to install a Linux box and leave it until the hardware fails
before building the replacement. When the replacement is built, then
I'll generally use the latest linux.

This is no different to the way I treat MS OSs. I don't have any 95, 98
or ME installs because they were poor OSs, but I've seen no need yet to
upgrade 2000 or XP boxes. Where I have upgraded 2000 boxes, it has
tended to be too Linux though.

... (Speaking of virtual
machines, I would really like to find one that will run a current Mac OS
client installation.

Does the Mac OS license allow this ? Does VirtualBox allow Mac OS ?

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
So,if you are used to Mac OS X, and, more importantly, *like* Mac OS X, it
is very possible that you will not like Linux at all.

CRU ?

I suspect that as long as I'm in my current line of work, I will need
access to Word. I'm hoping that some day that access will be through
virtualization, hence my search for Mac OS virtualization because I
certainly don't want to step down to Windows.

If you worked in a Linux environment but need a platform to run word, I
would have thought that word on XP in Virtual box would be about as good
as it could get, especially if you are already experiencing
incompatibilities with word on Mac OS ?

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Ignore any description of Linux that is older than 2 years.

As I mentioned above, this is an awfully short time frame for me these
days. That worries me because I don't like feeling as if I *have* to
upgrade to the next latest and greatest.

You don't.

I'm looking for more stability,
not less.

You can have as much stability as you like. Once you've got all you
need, just don't 'fix' what isn't broken.

I don't think we've yet seen any mainstream linux distro fall by the
wayside have we ?

Second, I am not a run-of-the-mill user. Therefore, I can't expect to
be happy with the default advice. I need to evaluate all my option, both
for the expected longevity of the platform and for its user interface
elements. That evaluation will take time, which is also holding me back.

Accepted. And these are things worth taking time over, though the point
has been made that regardless of distribution, Gnome, KDE etc are pretty
much the same internally.

I would really like to find a comparison of the different
distributions that would help me make that choice, but I understand that
it is likely to be out of date before I find it.

Not necessarily. http://www.linux.org/dist/ should get you a short list,
but from there on in you would have to find some people who can answer
your detailed questions.

I suspect that I will combine these two steps through virtualization.
Given the heavy dependance of modern operating systems on virtual memory
and the abysmal performance of optical drives compared to hard drives, I
don't think a live CD would give me a fair test of what it is like to
work with Linux. Even virtualization involves a performance hit, but it
is a good first step and does not require that I completely take over my
computer with Linux by booting from an external hard drive or a partition.

I'm thinking of doing much the same on my laptop under XP. Maybe
something based on the latest 64 Kubuntu or the Mint variant thereof.
Always assuming Virtual Box can run a 64 bit OS inside a 32 bit one ?
I've not checked that yet.

Yes. This has been a godsend for me. The fact that I have been able to
install small bits of "Linux" on my current machine has been part of the
reason that I'm even willing to consider a full Linux installation. It's
really a brilliant marketing ploy.

:) Probably not intended as one though.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Speaking of non-linear, I have a nozzle platypus hose beam.

:) I have a lot of crap in my garage too.

Cheers, J/.

John Morris

2009-08-03 01:51:44 UTC

Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for your thoughtful note.

Post by John Beardmore
OS releases come and go. That doesn't mean you have to slaveishly
install them all.
I tend to install a Linux box and leave it until the hardware fails
before building the replacement. When the replacement is built, then
I'll generally use the latest linux.
This is no different to the way I treat MS OSs. I don't have any 95,
98 or ME installs because they were poor OSs, but I've seen no need
yet to upgrade 2000 or XP boxes. Where I have upgraded 2000 boxes,
it has tended to be too Linux though.

That's good to hear. I do the same with my Macs. However, I'm
finding more and more that I *have* to upgrade because I want to
install some new piece of software that only supports the current and
last current version of the OS. I generally get around this by using
other software, but I have encountered times when this was not
possible. That's what forced me up to Mac OS X five years ago.
The Internet has not helped in this regard as I find more and more
pages that break rather badly if I don't use a more recent browser,
which, of course, requires a recent OS. This is really biting my
folks hard because my mother prefers System 6, which was last
supported by Apple in about 1990. So far, I have managed to drag her
all the way up to System 9, but she still complains when a web page
won't load for her. (That is also and example of the kind of
long-term stability I would like to see in an operating system.)

... (Speaking of virtual machines, I would really like to find one
that will run a current Mac OS client installation.

Does the Mac OS license allow this ? Does VirtualBox allow Mac OS ?

I don't feel a need to be too slavish about such issues. I've paid
for the license. I'm running the OS on Mac hardware, it is none of
Apple's business if I'm running directly on the hardware or through a
virtual machine. However, I can imagine that this is exactly why none
of the VM software I've looked at officially supports Mac OS
virtualization. I understand that developers need to watch their
backs more than I do.
The last I looked at VirtualBox, I did not see Mac OS listed as a
supported guest. I have not had time to download the software and try
it.

... (Why waste CRU on *that*?)

CRU ?

Computer resource units. It serves as a convenient general term for
all the different aspects of computers (RAM, hard drive, processor
speed, pixels, etc.) that could create a bottleneck.

Post by John Beardmore
If you worked in a Linux environment but need a platform to run
word, I would have thought that word on XP in Virtual box would be
about as good as it could get, especially if you are already
experiencing incompatibilities with word on Mac OS ?

I have no desire to return to Windows, even in a virtual machine. I
did that for six years and that was enough. At this point, I have
only a few friends still running Windows, so I don't even have to
support it any more. If my clients absolutely require an editor who
uses Windows, there's always Google.

I'm looking for more stability, not less.

You can have as much stability as you like. Once you've got all you
need, just don't 'fix' what isn't broken.

As I mentioned above, this argument only goes so far. As long as I
want to interact with the rest of the world, there is a certain
minimum level that I must maintain. Unfortunately, that minimum level
is moving faster that is was a few decades ago.

Post by John Beardmore
I don't think we've yet seen any mainstream linux distro fall by the
wayside have we ?

I wouldn't know, I've been watching for less than ten years.
Certainly their popularity waxes and wanes, which might be an
indication of impending doom.

Second, I am not a run-of-the-mill user. Therefore, I can't
expect to be happy with the default advice. I need to evaluate all
my option, both for the expected longevity of the platform and for
its user interface elements. That evaluation will take time, which
is also holding me back.

Accepted. And these are things worth taking time over, though the
point has been made that regardless of distribution, Gnome, KDE etc
are pretty much the same internally.

That may be good or it may be bad. I've read that KDE, I think, is
more Windows like. Aside from my dislike for the basic way Windows
works, I not particularly fond of Windows' look and feel, both the
old one from 98 and the new one from XP or whenever. If they are all
converging on looking like Windows, I may be slower in adopting.
However, I think I have also read that changing the look and feel is
easier on Linux than it is on Windows or a Mac.
It's not that I want things to look like a Mac either. I'm not to
fond of OS X with all its eye candy. What I would really like is the
ability to make it look the way I would design a user interface.
However, I doubt there is anything out there that would make this
easy enough that I would bother doing it. The next best thing is to
find a theme that is close enough to what I would like that it
entices me to move.

Post by John Beardmore
... http://www.linux.org/dist/ should get you a short list, but from
there on in you would have to find some people who can answer your
detailed questions.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll keep that in mind.

I suspect that I will combine these two steps through virtualization. ...

I'm thinking of doing much the same on my laptop under XP. Maybe
something based on the latest 64 Kubuntu or the Mint variant
thereof. Always assuming Virtual Box can run a 64 bit OS inside a 32
bit one ? I've not checked that yet.

The manual says that it can as of v2.1.

Best,
John

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-03 09:26:45 UTC

Hey, some additional points:

- Try Crossover Office. I really works for running Windows apps --
especially Office -- on Linux (and Mac OS, actaully)
- Don't take this the wrong way (not that there is any other way to
take a statement that starts with the disclaimer "don't take this the
wrong way") but you guys sound like a bunch of crotchety geezers. "I
don't want to run any computer that won't support my IBM 1442 Card
Read-Punch Model 1". Just saying...
- The web is the new OS. Most OS choices are already irrelevant.
(Might not be true for crotchety geezers still using punch card
readers).
- System 6????
- Check out Distrowatch: http://www.distrowatch.com

Oh, I had some more but that's enough, as we drag this topic into the
ground. Seeya!

--
JDS

John Beardmore

2009-08-03 10:26:23 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Try Crossover Office. I really works for running Windows apps --
especially Office -- on Linux (and Mac OS, actaully)

OK.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Don't take this the wrong way (not that there is any other way to
take a statement that starts with the disclaimer "don't take this the
wrong way") but you guys sound like a bunch of crotchety geezers. "I
don't want to run any computer that won't support my IBM 1442 Card
Read-Punch Model 1". Just saying...

With some validity no doubt.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- The web is the new OS.

Don't take this the wrong way, but 'not round here it isn't' ! I can't
speak for MSIE, but firefox and the things in it gobble and leak more
resources over a few days than can be casually be explained away. At the
moment it's using 225,052k, but anything up to half a gig before it
crashes seems to be common on machines where the browser is left open
for sustained periods. There may be better browsers. I sure hope so...

Web enabled applications may have a chance when we have a browser that
is as stable as KDE, Gnome or explorer, but even then, are they the
architecture that benefits most users ?

None of the functionality I routinely need is available as web enabled
apps as far as I know, and even if it was, why would I want to be a thin
client using remote shared CPU on the end of a long fragile data link
just because I can ?

From the little I've seen of Ajax, it's a pond I wouldn't want to swim
in unless I had to, and I don't see why most applications developers
would want to work that way given the choice. Scribus has had enough joy
moving to Qt4. Not sure that a port to the browser would go down well.

What has rendered the choice of OS obsolete to some extent is OO, Gimp,
Inkscape and Scribus.

Once the apps are cross platform, the choice of platform doesn't much
matter, but for most users it still does, and the dark heart of the
browser isn't much of an alternative, never mind the security issues,
politics and business risks of running commercial apps on third party
servers !

Cheers, J/.

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-03 10:39:38 UTC

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:26 AM, John Beardmore<John at t4sltd.co.uk> wrote:
<snip!>

Don't take this the wrong way, but 'not round here it isn't' ! ?I can't
speak for MSIE, but firefox and the things in it gobble and leak more
resources over a few days than can be casually be explained away. At the
moment it's using 225,052k, but anything up to half a gig before it crashes
seems to be common on machines where the browser is left open for sustained
periods. There may be better browsers. I sure hope so...
Web enabled applications may have a chance when we have a browser that is as
stable as KDE, Gnome or explorer, but even then, are they the architecture
that benefits most users ?

Ugh, I hear you. I spend a LOT of time using Firefox and do so only
out of necessity. I am *extremely* disappointed with the general
crappy direction FF has gone in wrt stability. I seriously have FF
crash up to five times per day, which is just plain unacceptable.

A *very* viable alternative is Opera. Opera is way better than FF. WAY
BETTER. But also, not without its issues. But seriously, it is much
more stable, much faster, easy on the eyes, renders pages great, and
has great user features. Now if only all websites would figure out,
finally, that designing sites or web apps to only work in MSIE with
ActiveX plugins (Quicken/Quickbooks, I'm looking at you) is a Bad
Idea(TM), long -term... Ah, well, maybe by 2014.

Also, I do realize that web-enabled apps require broadband internet of
some kind, and still not everyone even has the possibility of getting
that, let alone actually having it. But still, I stick with my "OS is
dead" prediction for the long term.

Finally, AJAX is just Javascript, and unless you are an old geezer,
you'll turn Javascript on. Oh, oops, whats that? Oh, sorry.

Actually, I really don't mean to pick on people who actually remember
using punch card readers -- I have fond memories of playing with
discarded punch cards and I also am fond of several old geezers. I
just think hearing old ("old" as in "older than me") people talk about
technology is funny, and I hope I can remember my current vantage
point 20 years from now. I have always found that older people,
especially smart ones, have trouble with certain types of new
concepts. I'm not explaining that very well, but I do have examples if
required.

seeya..

--
JDS

John Morris

2009-08-04 05:00:39 UTC

<snip!>

and Jeffrey silverman responded

I'm surprised to learn this about Firefox. It
and Safari (built on top of the same foundation,
as understand it) seem very stable on a Mac. I
use Safari primarily, but I also use Firefox as
necessary and I don't think either of them has
crashed on me in months.
While I don't generally run my computers
overnight, so my browsers get shut down at least
daily, my daughter's computer gets restarted
about once a month and her browser, Safari, is
always open. She has no problem with resource
leakage. In fact, she was running pretty well
with 512MB of RAM up until a few weeks ago when
she finally decided she could afford more.
Safari used to have a memory leak and would
gradually increase the share of the CPU it used,
but that was years ago in version 2 or something
like that.

A *very* viable alternative is Opera. Opera is way better than FF. WAY
BETTER. But also, not without its issues. But seriously, it is much
more stable, much faster, easy on the eyes, renders pages great, and
has great user features. Now if only all websites would figure out,
finally, that designing sites or web apps to only work in MSIE with
ActiveX plugins (Quicken/Quickbooks, I'm looking at you) is a Bad
Idea(TM), long -term... Ah, well, maybe by 2014.

I tried Opera for Mac some time ago. At the
time, it was supposed to be this blazing fast
browser with other great features. It was slower
than molasses and I have not been back since. Of
course, I'm not likely to go looking until I find
problems with my current choices.

Actually, I really don't mean to pick on people who actually remember
using punch card readers -- I have fond memories of playing with
discarded punch cards and I also am fond of several old geezers. I
just think hearing old ("old" as in "older than me") people talk about
technology is funny, and I hope I can remember my current vantage
point 20 years from now. I have always found that older people,
especially smart ones, have trouble with certain types of new
concepts. I'm not explaining that very well, but I do have examples if
required.

The effect is much broader than just computers
or even technology. Change happens. There is no
doubt about that. Also, for many different
reasons, younger folks are more likely to embrace
change than older folks. However, in this
particular discussion, I don't think this is a
young--old dichotomy. In fact, I have not seen
any evidence that convinces me that I'm younger
or older than anyone in this discussion besides
John Culleton.
This more about personal preferences. I have no
use for most of the "latest and greatest" in
technology these days. I don't need to watch
videos or listen to music on my computer. Cutesy
graphics don't impress me, Therefore, I don't
need to move up to the latest and greatest.
However, I would like to continue to be able to
do what I need to do with my computer. That is
generally possible without upgrades, except where
it intersects with the Internet. When a web page
displaying static data gets upgraded with some
flashy new graphics or layout, it often breaks
the older browsers even though it does not
present any new content.

Best,
John

Christoph Schäfer

2009-08-04 05:33:41 UTC

Hi guys,

Your conversation is somehow entertaining, but I agree with Alessandro: Please
don't abuse our Mailing List for unrelated discussions. We have a reputation
of being quite tolerant regarding OT discussions, but there have to be
limits. This is especially true if you consider that people tend to dig the
list archives for information.

We don't have a record of blocking users for abusing the list, but this is a
case that could trigger the saftey brake. So, please, move your discussions
somewhere else, or be prepared to be banned from this list!

Regards,

Christoph

John Culleton

2009-08-04 12:15:31 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Try Crossover Office. I really works for running Windows apps
-- especially Office -- on Linux (and Mac OS, actaully)

OK.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Don't take this the wrong way (not that there is any other
way to take a statement that starts with the disclaimer "don't
take this the wrong way") but you guys sound like a bunch of
crotchety geezers. "I don't want to run any computer that won't
support my IBM 1442 Card Read-Punch Model 1". Just saying...

With some validity no doubt.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- The web is the new OS.

Never had this problem. Running version 3.04 on Slackware Linux
12.2. Main memory is currently 4 gigs (new box.) I'll run some
tests. Currently taking 34% of cpu and 3% of memory.

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

John Morris

2009-08-04 04:08:10 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Try Crossover Office. I really works for running Windows apps --
especially Office -- on Linux (and Mac OS, actaully)

Yes, I've seen this. I'm not sure it would help me as it helps one
run Windows apps on another platform. That's not my goal.

I think you are starting to get the picture.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- The web is the new OS. Most OS choices are already irrelevant.
(Might not be true for crotchety geezers still using punch card
readers).

John Beardmore spoke my mind on this issue in many ways, but I'll
add a few points he did not cover.

1. In the places I frequent, my connection to the web is way too slow
for it to serve as a replacement for local apps for serious work. In
the area where I live, I'm one of the lucky ones to get 1.5Mbps and
the local provider has no plans to upgrade in the near future. If I
don't like that, there's always satellite at about 400Kbps. When I
travel, I usually get a similar connection speed. There are two
places where I get a significantly faster connection, my sister's and
my bother-in-law's. There I get 16Mbps and 21Mbps, which brings me to
my second point.

2. Even on a connection that is more than an order of magnitude
faster than my current connection, web servers are dog slow. I'm not
likely to trade in a fast local hard drive for the "wonders" of the
Internet for real production work. That means, for the foreseeable
future, my OS choice is very relevant to my overal computer
experience, even if I do retire my punch-card reader.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- System 6????

The sixth instance of the Macintosh System.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Check out Distrowatch: http://www.distrowatch.com

I had seen this one. I was mainly struck by the number of things
that website tried to sell me.

Best,
John

John Beardmore

2009-08-04 07:48:17 UTC

Post by John Morris
1. In the places I frequent, my connection to the web is way too slow
for it to serve as a replacement for local apps for serious work. In the
area where I live, I'm one of the lucky ones to get 1.5Mbps and the
local provider has no plans to upgrade in the near future. If I don't
like that, there's always satellite at about 400Kbps. When I travel, I
usually get a similar connection speed. There are two places where I get
a significantly faster connection, my sister's and my bother-in-law's.
There I get 16Mbps and 21Mbps, which brings me to my second point.

Then there's bandwidth charges...

Post by John Morris

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
- Check out Distrowatch: http://www.distrowatch.com

I had seen this one. I was mainly struck by the number of things that
website tried to sell me.

Yes - sad. But would you want to pay a subscription ?

Cheers, J/.

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 12:10:43 UTC

... I suggest Ubuntu, or, possibly even better,
Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++, but is just a bit less well known.

So what is it with Mint ? I've seen it highly praised in a number of
places, but when I've looked at the mint web site, it mostly seems to
boast about not being geeky and having a nice colour scheme. Technical
stuff is not prominently displayed. I'm all for not putting off lay
users, but...

I assume if it's like U++ there's more to it than that ? Is there a
technical edge ? Better testing ? Fewer bugs ?

Cheers, J/.

John Culleton

2009-08-02 12:59:56 UTC

... I suggest Ubuntu, or, possibly even better,
Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++, but is just a bit less well known.

So what is it with Mint ? I've seen it highly praised in a
number of places, but when I've looked at the mint web site, it
mostly seems to boast about not being geeky and having a nice
colour scheme. Technical stuff is not prominently displayed. I'm
all for not putting off lay users, but...
I assume if it's like U++ there's more to it than that ? Is
there a technical edge ? Better testing ? Fewer bugs ?
Cheers, J/.

Try the Slax (note spelling) self loading disk (downloadable free)
if you are a programmer type. Or put Slackware itself on a spare
partition.

Been using Slackware since the 1990s. All the tools needed to
compile the latest Scribus are there by default. I do an update to
e1.3.5 now and then, but use 1.3.3.13 for production.

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

John Beardmore

2009-08-03 00:33:53 UTC

Post by John Culleton

... I suggest Ubuntu, or, possibly even better,
Linux Mint, which is like Ubuntu++, but is just a bit less well known.

So what is it with Mint ? I've seen it highly praised in a
number of places, but when I've looked at the mint web site, it
mostly seems to boast about not being geeky and having a nice
colour scheme. Technical stuff is not prominently displayed. I'm
all for not putting off lay users, but...
I assume if it's like U++ there's more to it than that ? Is
there a technical edge ? Better testing ? Fewer bugs ?
Cheers, J/.

Try the Slax (note spelling) self loading disk (downloadable free)
if you are a programmer type. Or put Slackware itself on a spare
partition.
Been using Slackware since the 1990s. All the tools needed to
compile the latest Scribus are there by default. I do an update to
e1.3.5 now and then, but use 1.3.3.13 for production.

Had a look on the web site. It looks interesting, but no official 64 bit
port is a bit of a shame.

We've gone to 64 bit to loose the shackles of the 4 gig of RAM. The
paradox is that it's under XP that we're short of memory, and under
Linux that we can easily do something about it.

Cheers, J/.

Peter Nermander

2009-08-01 19:19:08 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of free apps, of
which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps on

It should be noted that about 99% of the applications in Ubuntu comes
from Debian. Sometimes they are crippled (because Ubuntu wants things
to be easy). Look for example at the screen saver "3D text". In Ubuntu
is it not possible to change the text.

Ubuntu is, like a lot of Linux distros, based on Debian. Why? Simply
because Debian is "the" Gnu Linux. Of all the major Linux distros,
Debian is the only one which is fully "free" (as in freedom). That's
why everbody use it as a base.

/Peter

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-01 19:35:09 UTC

All that is true, but telling a new user interested in switching to Debian
(rather than to Ubuntu) is like telling, to use the car anaolgy again,
someone learning how to drive a car to start on a manual transmission vs an
automatic. Hm, a less than perfect analogy, to be sure.

My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users *precisely because
of* things like the fact that you can't edit the text in the 3dtext
screensaver. Starting with a harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.

Ubuntu does make some decisions for the user but in my experience they are
pretty good ones, and, unliek Apple, those decisions can usually be
overridden pretty easily.

Post by Peter Nermander

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of free apps,

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps on

It should be noted that about 99% of the applications in Ubuntu comes
from Debian. Sometimes they are crippled (because Ubuntu wants things
to be easy). Look for example at the screen saver "3D text". In Ubuntu
is it not possible to change the text.
Ubuntu is, like a lot of Linux distros, based on Debian. Why? Simply
because Debian is "the" Gnu Linux. Of all the major Linux distros,
Debian is the only one which is fully "free" (as in freedom). That's
why everbody use it as a base.
/Peter
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090801/f4f5afb8/attachment.htm>

John Morris

2009-08-01 20:12:19 UTC

Thanks Peter and Jeffrey for this valuable information. As I said
before, I'm not the typical user. Peter's comments and Jeffrey's
confirmation would make me lean away from Ubuntu precisely because
I'm not interested in installing yet another operating system from
the toaster model. I don't want an operating system that has been
crippled so it won't scare people away. I want the power to quickly
and easily set my computer up the way I want it to be set up. I also
want an operating system that does not require the latest and
greatest in hardware just to run one application. Apple has done a
fine job of making UNIX so simple that even an idiot can use it.
However, I'm not an idiot and Apple is losing me and my kind as a
result of their efforts to gain market share.

John

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
All that is true, but telling a new user interested in switching to Debian
(rather than to Ubuntu) is like telling, to use the car anaolgy again,
someone learning how to drive a car to start on a manual transmission vs an
automatic. Hm, a less than perfect analogy, to be sure.
My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users *precisely because
of* things like the fact that you can't edit the text in the 3dtext
screensaver. Starting with a harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.
Ubuntu does make some decisions for the user but in my experience they are
pretty good ones, and, unliek Apple, those decisions can usually be
overridden pretty easily.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of

free apps, of

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps on

It should be noted that about 99% of the applications in Ubuntu comes
from Debian. Sometimes they are crippled (because Ubuntu wants things
to be easy). Look for example at the screen saver "3D text". In Ubuntu
is it not possible to change the text.
Ubuntu is, like a lot of Linux distros, based on Debian. Why? Simply
because Debian is "the" Gnu Linux. Of all the major Linux distros,
Debian is the only one which is fully "free" (as in freedom). That's
why everbody use it as a base.

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-01 22:47:49 UTC

Hey, there does appear to be a misunderstanding about Ubuntu. Ubuntu is not
"dumbed down" in any way. It merely makes the hard, annoying stuff easier.
Like installation. Like setting up your network, or printer, or webcam. If,
occasionally, you come across an example like the 3D text one, there is
always a way around it, even if that way is reinstalling that package from
source. Mac OS does not have that option, typically. I would simply never
recommend Debian to new Linux users.

Hey, I am a professional systems administrator and I use Ubuntu. Believe me
that it is in no way dumbed down; Ubuntu makes some decisions, but they are
typically good ones, and typically can be overridden.

Thanks Peter and Jeffrey for this valuable information. As I said before,
I'm not the typical user. Peter's comments and Jeffrey's confirmation would
make me lean away from Ubuntu precisely because I'm not interested in
installing yet another operating system from the toaster model. I don't want
an operating system that has been crippled so it won't scare people away. I
want the power to quickly and easily set my computer up the way I want it to
be set up. I also want an operating system that does not require the latest
and greatest in hardware just to run one application. Apple has done a fine
job of making UNIX so simple that even an idiot can use it. However, I'm not
an idiot and Apple is losing me and my kind as a result of their efforts to
gain market share.
John

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090801/cbef3b05/attachment.htm>

John Morris

2009-08-01 23:21:31 UTC

Thanks for the clarification, Jeffrey. I'll keep it in mind as I
move forward. It seems to me possible that a distribution could make
the hard choices for the "typical" user and yet cleanly leave the
option open for a more adventurous user to choose a different path.
Unfortunately, this tends to require extra work on the part of the
developers and also leaves open the possibility the the novice user
might mess something up without knowing how to restore it. Such a
situation would cast a poor light on the distribution and thus might
be avoided by the developers who, very reasonably, want their work
seen in the best of light. Therefore, I would have to see it before I
believed that a simplified distribution was really as flexible as I
would like it to be.
That said, I can imagine that Ubuntu, even with some dumbing down,
might be fine for me. If the type of application that is crippled is
things like screen savers and other eye candy, I'll never even
notice. One of the first things I do with any operating system is
turn off and, preferably, remove all the eye candy I can. I see no
point in wasting hard drive space on things I don't want in my house.
However, I do have to admit that locking in the text displayed by a
screen saver seems particularly heavy handed.

As a small clarification, the possibility of removing a crippled
application and reinstalling the OS version is generally available in
Mac OS X. I used that option when I installed the much more
functional rsync 3.0.6 in favor of the ridiculously old 2.6.9
installed by Apple's latest installers. Naturally, when I'm messing
around with other people's work, I have to take steps to ensure that
their work does not cause me problems and that my messing does not
cause their work to break. Therefore, I have left rsync 2.6.9 in
place to be used by Apple's processes and installed the newer version
of rsync under a different name to be used by my scripts. This works
for me because I'm not expecting any other UNIX processes to use the
newer version of rsync. If I ever do need that functionality, I'll
burn that bridge when I get to it.

Best,
John

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Hey, there does appear to be a misunderstanding about Ubuntu. Ubuntu is not
"dumbed down" in any way. It merely makes the hard, annoying stuff easier.
Like installation. Like setting up your network, or printer, or webcam. If,
occasionally, you come across an example like the 3D text one, there is
always a way around it, even if that way is reinstalling that package from
source. Mac OS does not have that option, typically. I would simply never
recommend Debian to new Linux users.
Hey, I am a professional systems administrator and I use Ubuntu. Believe me
that it is in no way dumbed down; Ubuntu makes some decisions, but they are
typically good ones, and typically can be overridden.

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 12:26:56 UTC

:) The messing about required to get a root login is frustration enough
for anybody who grew up with debian !

One of the recent Ubuntus seemed to screw up installation of the network
if you wanted fixed IP addresses.

There are ways around these things, but maybe better to be less
'friendly' in the first place, hence my interest in mint if it's better
tested. (8.04 or 8.10 ?)

Cheers, J/.

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-02 12:32:23 UTC

<snip!>
:) The messing about required to get a root login is frustration enough
for anybody who grew up with debian !

"Messing about"? It is REALLY REALLY simple, maybe even simpler than Debian,
to get a root login, if one really wants. I'm not talking "root login at
GDM" though. If that's what you want, then stick with Debian. IMO, the whole
root login thing is an area where Ubuntu made some good choices.

One of the recent Ubuntus seemed to screw up installation of the network if
you wanted fixed IP addresses.
There are ways around these things, but maybe better to be less 'friendly'
in the first place, hence my interest in mint if it's better tested. (8.04
or 8.10 ?)

I doubt Mint would fix that sort of problem. In Mint, if something
fundamental is broken in Ubuntu, it seems to stay broken in Mint.

Also, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly better than either 2008 release.

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090802/ee52d172/attachment.htm>

John Culleton

2009-08-02 12:54:14 UTC

<snip!>
:) The messing about required to get a root login is
: frustration enough
for anybody who grew up with debian !

"Messing about"? It is REALLY REALLY simple, maybe even simpler
than Debian, to get a root login, if one really wants. I'm not
talking "root login at GDM" though. If that's what you want, then
stick with Debian. IMO, the whole root login thing is an area
where Ubuntu made some good choices.

One of the recent Ubuntus seemed to screw up installation of
the network if you wanted fixed IP addresses.
There are ways around these things, but maybe better to be less
'friendly' in the first place, hence my interest in mint if
it's better tested. (8.04 or 8.10 ?)

I doubt Mint would fix that sort of problem. In Mint, if
something fundamental is broken in Ubuntu, it seems to stay
broken in Mint.
Also, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly better than either 2008
release.

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-02 13:47:18 UTC

Well, the first thing I do on any Debian derivative is to install things
that let me watch porn. I guess my mileage really does vary.

I think my argument is coming from the "recommendations for new Linux users"
direction. Recommending Slackware or Debian to new Linux users is typically
a bad idea, if you are interested in promoting the uptake of Linux distros.
However, NUMMV ("new users mileage yadda yadda") and all new users are
different. But understand that that is the vantage point from where my
discussion stems. "What distro do you recommend to a new Linux user, one who
was previously using Mac OS for the last 10 years?" "Slackeware? Debian?" NO
and NO. Typically.

Anyway, I'm not stupid either, and have been using computers since 1978. I'm
really not casting aspersions on your brain or your skillset, just on the
POV of your argument.

sudo su -

This is even easier than "su" because you don't even have to know a
different password, you just use your own.

Finally, finally, the first things I really do on any new Ubuntu install
are:

1) install gvim
2) install sux
3) add "set editing-mode vi" to /etc/inputrc
4) Install nfs-common
5) Install all my other software and printer(s) and mount points

I should proabbly script that, I do 1-4 so often.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic for Scribus, so sorry about that.

Alright, seeya...

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:26 AM, John Beardmore <John at t4sltd.co.uk>

<snip!>
:) The messing about required to get a root login is
: frustration enough
for anybody who grew up with debian !

"Messing about"? It is REALLY REALLY simple, maybe even simpler
than Debian, to get a root login, if one really wants. I'm not
talking "root login at GDM" though. If that's what you want, then
stick with Debian. IMO, the whole root login thing is an area
where Ubuntu made some good choices.

One of the recent Ubuntus seemed to screw up installation of
the network if you wanted fixed IP addresses.
There are ways around these things, but maybe better to be less
'friendly' in the first place, hence my interest in mint if
it's better tested. (8.04 or 8.10 ?)

I doubt Mint would fix that sort of problem. In Mint, if
something fundamental is broken in Ubuntu, it seems to stay
broken in Mint.
Also, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly better than either 2008
release.

The first thing I do on any Debian derivative is to change the
password on root. Then I can go to work. I am not stupid and I
have been working with computers since 1968. I don't need
some big brother hiding things from me. YMMV of course.
--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090802/e4b092d2/attachment.htm>

a.l.e

2009-08-02 14:05:02 UTC

hi list,

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Well, the first thing I do on any Debian derivative is to install
things that let me watch porn.

i think that this topics is getting a bit too much off topic...

can we get back discussing "using os x / linux / windows with scribus / free graphics software" or stop it here, please?

have fun
a.l.e

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 21:13:47 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Well, the first thing I do on any Debian derivative is to install things
that let me watch porn.

:) Heaven help us all if you ever install Red Hat !

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
I think my argument is coming from the "recommendations for new Linux users"
direction. Recommending Slackware or Debian to new Linux users is typically
a bad idea, if you are interested in promoting the uptake of Linux distros.
However, NUMMV ("new users mileage yadda yadda") and all new users are
different. But understand that that is the vantage point from where my
discussion stems. "What distro do you recommend to a new Linux user, one who
was previously using Mac OS for the last 10 years?" "Slackeware? Debian?" NO
and NO. Typically.
Anyway, I'm not stupid either, and have been using computers since 1978. I'm
really not casting aspersions on your brain or your skillset, just on the
POV of your argument.

sudo su -

This is even easier than "su" because you don't even have to know a
different password, you just use your own.

OK - neat. I always did a sudo to set the root password, then I could
log in, once I'd figured out that setting a root password was all that
was required.

It all struck me as sadly reminiscent of XP being a PITA about
administrative logins though.

Cheers, J/.

Frank Cox

2009-08-02 21:22:09 UTC

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:47 +0100

sudo su -

I've always used "sudo bash" to get a root prompt in Ubuntu, Damn Small Linux
and the like.

--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-02 23:09:09 UTC

Ah, yes, more than one way to split a cat, I always say.

Post by Frank Cox
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:13:47 +0100

sudo su -

I've always used "sudo bash" to get a root prompt in Ubuntu, Damn Small Linux
and the like.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090802/9b07a522/attachment.htm>

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 13:26:30 UTC

<snip!>
:) The messing about required to get a root login is frustration enough
for anybody who grew up with debian !

"Messing about"? It is REALLY REALLY simple, maybe even simpler than Debian,
to get a root login, if one really wants.

I did really want. Every *nix I've ever worked with sets up root and
possibly one other user. Forcing you to use google to find out how to
set up a root login strikes me as naff.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
I'm not talking "root login at
GDM" though. If that's what you want, then stick with Debian. IMO, the whole
root login thing is an area where Ubuntu made some good choices.

:) Well, that's a matter of religious difference we probably shouldn't
air in the scribus list.

I doubt Mint would fix that sort of problem. In Mint, if something
fundamental is broken in Ubuntu, it seems to stay broken in Mint.

OK.

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
Also, Ubuntu 9.04 is significantly better than either 2008 release.

Thanks. Maybe I'll have play with one or the other then.

Cheers, J/.

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 12:15:49 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users *precisely because
of* things like the fact that you can't edit the text in the 3dtext
screensaver. Starting with a harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.

Maybe, but I would have thought that text screen saver where you
couldn't change the text would be seem by most users as utterly pointless ?

Cheers, J/.

Jeffrey Silverman

2009-08-02 12:29:18 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users *precisely because

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
of* things like the fact that you can't edit the text in the 3dtext
screensaver. Starting with a harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.

Maybe, but I would have thought that text screen saver where you couldn't
change the text would be seem by most users as utterly pointless ?
Cheers, J/.

Surely, that is true. And it is probably a mistake; Ubuntu is far from being
perfect.

Regarding Mint: Mint takes care of a lot of the little details that Ubuntu
leaves off. The most prominent ones are being able to play media and web
plugins and Java out of the box, but there is more. Its just lots of little
things. Truth be told, I use Ubuntu, probably for the potential longevity of
the project as compared to smaller distros. Ubuntu is well funded, popular,
and growing still, as near as I can tell, and I need that sort of longevity
of support.

--
JDS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scribus.info/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20090802/dc891eec/attachment.htm>

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 13:21:15 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users *precisely because

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
of* things like the fact that you can't edit the text in the 3dtext
screensaver. Starting with a harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.

Maybe, but I would have thought that text screen saver where you couldn't
change the text would be seem by most users as utterly pointless ?
Cheers, J/.

Surely, that is true. And it is probably a mistake; Ubuntu is far from being
perfect.
Regarding Mint: Mint takes care of a lot of the little details that Ubuntu
leaves off. The most prominent ones are being able to play media and web
plugins and Java out of the box, but there is more. Its just lots of little
things. Truth be told, I use Ubuntu, probably for the potential longevity of
the project as compared to smaller distros. Ubuntu is well funded, popular,
and growing still, as near as I can tell, and I need that sort of longevity
of support.

So there's a presumption that small or derivative distros might fail or
not be able to provide ongoing support ?

Cheers, J/.

John Culleton

2009-08-02 13:19:28 UTC

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
My point is really that I recommend Ubuntu to new users
*precisely because of* things like the fact that you can't edit
the text in the 3dtext screensaver. Starting with a
harder-to-use distro is a mistake, imo.

Maybe, but I would have thought that text screen saver where you
couldn't change the text would be seem by most users as utterly pointless ?
Cheers, J/.

Other distros worth considering are Kubuntu and Slackware which I
use. Both of these use the more Windows-like KDE interface by
default. Slackware also allows a choice of several simplified
interfaces. And if the author has not blocked it I can highlight
and copy text from a pdf, a web page etc. into my favorite editor
program.

I can install Slackware from DVD a lot faster than I was able to
install Kubuntu or Ubuntu. But I have been doing it for a while.

IMO the Gnome interface featured on Debian and its variant Ubuntu
is idiosyncratic and harder to use. But "de gustibus non disputandum
est " etc. (roughly there is no disputing about taste).

--
John Culleton
Create Book Covers with Scribus/e-book $5.95
http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html

John Beardmore

2009-08-02 13:48:14 UTC

Post by John Culleton
Other distros worth considering are Kubuntu and Slackware which I
use. Both of these use the more Windows-like KDE interface by
default. Slackware also allows a choice of several simplified
interfaces.

I've never used slack. Didn't sound as if it had much by way of
automated package management last time I heard, but that's not
necessarily a bad thing. It sounds as if I'd like the culture. Maybe I
should give it a try.

Post by John Culleton
And if the author has not blocked it I can highlight
and copy text from a pdf, a web page etc. into my favorite editor
program.

Can't that be be done on pretty much every desktop though ?

Post by John Culleton
I can install Slackware from DVD a lot faster than I was able to
install Kubuntu or Ubuntu. But I have been doing it for a while.

Not really an issue.

Post by John Culleton
IMO the Gnome interface featured on Debian and its variant Ubuntu
is idiosyncratic and harder to use. But "de gustibus non disputandum
est " etc. (roughly there is no disputing about taste).

We have various ages of Kubuntu on some machines - and yes, I generally
prefer it to gnome. Then again, so far, I hardly use the linux desktop.
When I programmed in *nix, graphical desktops were still some way over
the horizon and we made our own text / graphics workstations out of
Apricot Xi 'PC's with the video chips reprogrammed, and Pluto graphics
boxes piggybacked into those over some sort of parallel interface. Mice
came from Penny and Giles with a Z8 based interface card which talked to
the Apricot via a serial interface. The Apricot UARTs struggled to
manage 9600 baud !

Cheers, J/.

mrdocs

2009-08-23 21:15:27 UTC

Post by Peter Nermander

Post by Jeffrey Silverman
The best thing about Ubuntu, IMO, is the massive ecosystem of free apps,
of which Scribus is just one. Maybe step (0) is: migrate to all free apps
on

It should be noted that about 99% of the applications in Ubuntu comes
from Debian. Sometimes they are crippled (because Ubuntu wants things
to be easy). Look for example at the screen saver "3D text". In Ubuntu
is it not possible to change the text.
Ubuntu is, like a lot of Linux distros, based on Debian. Why? Simply
because Debian is "the" Gnu Linux. Of all the major Linux distros,
Debian is the only one which is fully "free" (as in freedom). That's
why everbody use it as a base.
/Peter

No, lots of people use Debian because it has a large number of packages and
its stability. It is simply not true that Debian is more "free" than others.
openSUSE, Fedora and Mandriva all have releases which are equally "free".

Both openSUSE and Fedora while started by corporate entities, have explicitly
made re-distributable "re-spins" of their distro available.

Peter

a.l.e

2009-08-23 22:35:16 UTC

ciao peter,

Post by mrdocs
No, lots of people use Debian because it has a large number of
packages and its stability. It is simply not true that Debian is more
"free" than others. openSUSE, Fedora and Mandriva all have releases
which are equally "free".
Both openSUSE and Fedora while started by corporate entities, have
explicitly made re-distributable "re-spins" of their distro
available.

John Culleton

2009-08-24 00:49:31 UTC

Post by a.l.e
ciao peter,

Post by mrdocs
No, lots of people use Debian because it has a large number of
packages and its stability. It is simply not true that Debian is
more "free" than others. openSUSE, Fedora and Mandriva all have
releases which are equally "free".
Both openSUSE and Fedora while started by corporate entities,
have explicitly made re-distributable "re-spins" of their distro
available.

there are debian guidelines which are seen as more strict than what
is common for other distribution.
some parts are similar in other free distributions, some not.
imho, most of the differences are related to different views on what freedom is...
ciao
a.l.e
_______________________________________________
scribus mailing list
scribus at lists.scribus.info
http://lists.scribus.info/mailman/listinfo/scribus

The major distinction is that Debian is wedded to Gnome and some other
distros, including the one I use, Slackware, use as little of Gnome
as possible, relying on KDE instead. It is one of those Hatfield
versus Coy feuds, like Vi versus Emacs. With Slackware if a program
is available in a tarball Slack can compile it. There need not be
dependence on someone's update to a particular collection.

Someone in this thread made joking comment about my unwillingness to
use Scribus for anything except book cover art. Well, I use Scribus
when I can. My e-book "Create Book Covers with Scribus" began as a
Scribus project. But I had a file size limit of (I was told) 2MB for
a Booklocker ebook (actually 3MB I later discovered.) PDF file sizes
from Scribus tend to balloon, whereas pdftex is very thrifty with
file size. It was frankly a pain to do it in TeX but necessary
because of file size.

For my other work, typesetting of (mostly) novels, Scribus at this
point bogs down on big word counts. That may be ameliorated in the
future but I fear it is inherent in the Scribus structure.

Add to this the lack of many of the typesetting amenities which make
TeX superior, such as paragraph at a time justification, indexing,
widow and orphan suppression, true footnotes, combined with my own
familiarity with the TeX approach going back to 1995 or so, and
Scribus isn't the tool I pick up for book length tasks. It is not
that it can't be done---I remember people doing accounting programs
in Fortran instead of COBOL---but that it is very inconveniently
done.

I look forward to more advances in Scribus, and doing more work in it,
as time goes by.

--
John Culleton
Able Indexers and Typesetters

Peter Nermander

2009-08-03 10:38:54 UTC