How does scribus compare to latex or lyx, my document layout/ publishing engines of choice? What features would convince me to pay money for this product?
Well, Scribus is like something "not-yet-QuarkXPress" or "almost PageMaker" or "Prototype of InDesign". Like you're drag-n-drop text, images, you put them visually etc. Is very good if the page is complicated (newspapers, magazines, posters, booklets).
LaTeX is more "compile this script" thing, that is good for a scientific papers and similar stuff, but is not the best choice for the things above.
LaTeX can do all of that stuff, just not via WYSIWYG. Complicated page layouts, varied fonts, image placement, etc. can all be done just as precisely. Plus, it's got far fewer bugs (TeX itself is essentially bug-free, but I can't say the same of some of the lesser used LaTeX macros).
Yep, LaTeX can do complicated stuff, I know. It actually can do even more than Scribus or InDesign (music score, for example). But that's not the point what it can or can not. The point is what it is tend to do better, where "better" is a set of various factors, including dumb customer, graphical designer specifics and just a time.
just not via WYSIWYG
Bingo. And that's the deal: you need it fast, rightfuckinnow, often in front of your customer, you need it visually and very often you need to follow the mockup very carefully. So the in case of LaTeX you basically need to "decompile" visually the layout, translate in your mind to a LaTeX script, then render.
That would sound the same ridiculously, like "Hey, throw away GIMP or Photoshop, because we have an ImageMagick and a Bash".:-) I mean, I understand your point, but graphical designers tend to do things... you know... visually, unlike pure math guys, that usually suck at graphical design big time.
latex comparison (Score:0)
How does scribus compare to latex or lyx, my document layout/ publishing engines of choice? What features would convince me to pay money for this product?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Scribus is like something "not-yet-QuarkXPress" or "almost PageMaker" or "Prototype of InDesign". Like you're drag-n-drop text, images, you put them visually etc. Is very good if the page is complicated (newspapers, magazines, posters, booklets).
LaTeX is more "compile this script" thing, that is good for a scientific papers and similar stuff, but is not the best choice for the things above.
Re: (Score:2)
LaTeX can do all of that stuff, just not via WYSIWYG. Complicated page layouts, varied fonts, image placement, etc. can all be done just as precisely. Plus, it's got far fewer bugs (TeX itself is essentially bug-free, but I can't say the same of some of the lesser used LaTeX macros).
Re:latex comparison (Score:1)
Yep, LaTeX can do complicated stuff, I know. It actually can do even more than Scribus or InDesign (music score, for example). But that's not the point what it can or can not. The point is what it is tend to do better, where "better" is a set of various factors, including dumb customer, graphical designer specifics and just a time.
just not via WYSIWYG
Bingo. And that's the deal: you need it fast, rightfuckinnow, often in front of your customer, you need it visually and very often you need to follow the mockup very carefully. So the in case of LaTeX you basically need to "decompile" visually the layout, translate in your mind to a LaTeX script, then render.
That would sound the same ridiculously, like "Hey, throw away GIMP or Photoshop, because we have an ImageMagick and a Bash". :-) I mean, I understand your point, but graphical designers tend to do things... you know... visually, unlike pure math guys, that usually suck at graphical design big time.