3 ms·

> The code is open, if you want your tools to do > something different you are welcome to change it. So there I was, deadline from the client looming and my

by biot 15y ago

> The code is open, if you want your tools to do > something different you are welcome to change it. So there I was, deadline from the client looming and my publishing piece still wasn't finished because using Scribus takes way longer than using InDesign since it lacks key features, UI polish, and usability. Rather than purchasing InDesign and get the job done so I could get paid, I decided to take several years off work, learn software development, and improve Scribus. Wait... do people consider that a serious argument? Have they been drinking the open source kool-aid a little too much?

damaru 15y ago
this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. And I also think that everyone should learn programming too ;) but that's another story!
- Silhouette 15y ago
  > this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. The thing is, that corporate plan is driven by profitability, and profitability is driven by what people want. It's just basic economics at work. In contrast, the FOSS approach is to rely on either charity or an alternative business model. When it comes to doing the nasty but necessary hard work to make good software, neither of those has proved as reliable an incentive as being able to pay the rent.
- pvarangot 15y ago
  I'm actually both into development and photography, and also have sort of a history in the opensource movement in my city, so I stumble into this way of thinking pretty much. I actually call it "anti-humanist" software development, because for me it serves as an excuse for developers to stop thinking about how their software affects other people with the excuse that "well they should fix it themselves... it's not that i'm an evil corporation that doesn't release source code". > this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not > in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change > you want. Replace corporation for open source project benevolent dictator and you have a counter-argument. I don't know how much experience you have interacting with Gimp developers, but they are consistently conservative and anal when it comes to interacting with actual users of their software. Also, it's not that closed source design applications are a walled garden, Photoshop supports plugins since way before Gimp was released. I beleive it was a feature the Knoll brothers worked on from the first version. > And I also think that everyone should learn programming > too ;) but that's another story! I don't beleive it's another story. Yes, basic programming should be in the curricula of secondary or maybe even primary education, in fact I beleive it is in most developed countries... But that doesn't mean everyone should be able to understand, even less modify, the code for complex tools like a raster image editing software.
- dorian-graph 15y ago
  > this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. This is so not true or at least not on an absolute level.
naner 15y ago
It was merely listed as an advantage. You have the option of changing Scribus or paying someone to change Scribus for you. You do not have that option with InDesign. The possibility that Scribus is a cumbersome mess (I haven't used it) is irrelevant to this point.

by biot 15y ago

damaru 15y ago

this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. And I also think that everyone should learn programming too ;) but that's another story!

Silhouette 15y ago
> this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. The thing is, that corporate plan is driven by profitability, and profitability is driven by what people want. It's just basic economics at work. In contrast, the FOSS approach is to rely on either charity or an alternative business model. When it comes to doing the nasty but necessary hard work to make good software, neither of those has proved as reliable an incentive as being able to pay the rent.
pvarangot 15y ago
I'm actually both into development and photography, and also have sort of a history in the opensource movement in my city, so I stumble into this way of thinking pretty much. I actually call it "anti-humanist" software development, because for me it serves as an excuse for developers to stop thinking about how their software affects other people with the excuse that "well they should fix it themselves... it's not that i'm an evil corporation that doesn't release source code". > this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not > in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change > you want. Replace corporation for open source project benevolent dictator and you have a counter-argument. I don't know how much experience you have interacting with Gimp developers, but they are consistently conservative and anal when it comes to interacting with actual users of their software. Also, it's not that closed source design applications are a walled garden, Photoshop supports plugins since way before Gimp was released. I beleive it was a feature the Knoll brothers worked on from the first version. > And I also think that everyone should learn programming > too ;) but that's another story! I don't beleive it's another story. Yes, basic programming should be in the curricula of secondary or maybe even primary education, in fact I beleive it is in most developed countries... But that doesn't mean everyone should be able to understand, even less modify, the code for complex tools like a raster image editing software.
dorian-graph 15y ago
> this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change you want. This is so not true or at least not on an absolute level.

naner 15y ago

It was merely listed as an advantage. You have the option of changing Scribus or paying someone to change Scribus for you. You do not have that option with InDesign. The possibility that Scribus is a cumbersome mess (I haven't used it) is irrelevant to this point.