Along with the capable Scribus and the advancing Passepartout, GrassHoper LLC has released PageStream 5.0.1 for Linux (using GTK+: screenshot) along with many other platforms including AmigaOS, Windows, MorphOS and a pending Mac OS X version. For what’s new on 5.x of this legendary DTP system (out and about since 1986 for AtariST), check here.
Professional DTP on Linux with PageStream 5.x
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
While I do have PageStream here – I must say that scribus is still superior. Unfortunately a lot of functions under PageStream for Linux have bugs or are not already ported form their other platforms.
Why did they released a new Version 5 – if their “old” v 4.xxx still contain bugs and not working features?
why should i update to the new version (and pay oney for it) if promised features from version 4 are still lacking?
PageStream version 4 or 5 does not mean that this product as a long Linux-tradition – it only means that the whole product itself was ported form their other platforms to Linux itself -> Unfortunately not all these functions does already work.
e.g. It is still better to use PDFCUPS or kprinter for producing PDFs as the PageStream option….
I though they went the way of the Amiga! I am glad they are still alive! I can’t wait for the OSX version!
Finally version 5 can use transparancy png’s.
This was a feauture i missed since i started with version 3.
I would also like to see that it would become “one” app instead of dozen seperate windows wich disapear and reappear, i am losing overview once and a while. Overall its a very nice application wich can do almost anything a proffesional DTP’r need. Sorry to say but Scribus is no where near it but that does not say Scribus is not a nice application with lots of potential.
PDF ouput of Pagestream needs lots a work too because Adobe Reader does not like all my exported documents after i read them in Pagestream and re-save them.
again – the issue of fonts is a problem. look at the screenshot. the faces rendered by the GTK toolkit are done well – but the text rended by the dtp package n the main page is very ugly. the “line” over the lowe case letters is uneven and distracting. and the rendering of each letter is done badly (lumpy in the wring places). it may be that the prining is fine… but its distracting!
“Again – the issue of fonts is a problem. look at the screenshot. ”
I have been using Pagestream on Amiga for years, and it works very well. Font display however is a problem – on Amiga, the Agfa fonts display well, but Truetype and Type 1 have bad aliasing.
The screen shot you point to is NOT acceptable.
The printout will of course be correct as the Postscript engine in the printer renders the fonts.
Overall, this is an excellent program (at least on Amiga – I haven’t tried the other platforms) and very reasonably priced.
“Overall, this is an excellent program (at least on Amiga – I haven’t tried the other platforms) and very reasonably priced.”
Yes – thats what i mean: PageStream version 4 for Linux is not the same as PageStream version4 for Amiga.
They *should* offer the same functions – but unfortunately the linux version still lacks a lot of polish! and am afarid this polish will be lost during the platform-marathon which is announced by porting PageStream to even more plattforms (MorphOS, MacOSX,…)
Sorry but form a users point of view (and I paid for it) the Linux version (v4 of PageStream) still is BETA -> so why pay for the next beta release? (version5 of PageStream)…
BTW: Do I excpect to much from a commercial application which cost moeny to offer the user an installer?
Why does the whole PDF-export (Im not talking about the import which is even more “experimental” but ok as its a new feature) still suck? (try the compressed options, try stupid gradients in your document and see what happens to them as PDF (PDFCUPS will handle it))
The whole window-management will clutter your desktop. And GTK is now excuse here as Inkscape and/or Passpartout show how to combine a documentview which its toolbars. Try to work on a productive manner withc PageStream and three open documents on a single desktop…? Yes ION will do the trick -> but I won’t use a diffrent window-manager for a special application….
still dissapointed and still hoping for improvement
>again – the issue of fonts is a problem. look at the screenshot.
The fonts ARE right when they are on 100% zoom. My screenshot is at 97.3%, this is why they look like crap (I noticed after I put the shot up).
Looks very good.
1. How is zooming out a little an excuse to render fonts awfully ugly?
2. What is the reason to list this application on gnome-files.org, besides that it coincidentally uses GTK+?
>1. How is zooming out a little an excuse to render fonts awfully ugly?
It is not. The font rendering should have been better with zooming. However, at least at 100%, there is no problem. This is one of the many limitations of the linux version of pagestream.
>2. What is the reason to list this application on gnome-files.org, besides that it coincidentally uses GTK+?
Read again the “contact us” page on that site. Gnomefiles.org IS NOT about gnome-only software, it is primarily about GTK+ software. ANYTHING that uses GTK+, should go to gnomefiles.org (even wrapper toolkits and bindings). We picked the name gnomefiles.org and not gtkfiles.org because it has more appeal. You should have read the gnomefiles.org description before you ask this question.
Okay, I didn’t see that. In each case, I think it would be a good idea to mark the real GNOME applications, so that you know they will use the Gnome things like gnome-vfs and the HIG, and therefore know they will blend into the GNOME environment nicely.
Besides that, I think all those floating toolbars can’t be a good idea. I have not used desktop publishing software before (unless RagTime counts) but from Paint Shop Pro and The Gimp, I know that having a lot of floating windows is quite annoying. The way The Gimp 2.0 does it, is a lot better.
I am 34 now and remember using PageStream on my Amiga in highschool. This was pre-DTP (think dot matrix era) for most normal folk – I got lots of accusations about stealing my essay from a magainze.
I am amazed it is still around.
It would be nice if your news articles specified what the program was. It just says the name of the program and that it has been released, not what kind of program it is.
You should have read the gnomefiles.org description before you ask this question.
A thing’s (and especially a webpage’s) name should accurately describe what it is, without being misleading. When something appears to be an analyseable name, then you should except confusion if it doesn’t match up with that. No-one should have to read a description in full to know what Gnome Files is. You go to the webpage and see it’s obviously a directory of software, you see it’s name and notice it includes only the word ‘Gnome’, and you should be able to put one and one together without being berated by the creator. (Incidentally, you could’ve called it ‘the G Files’ and alluded to a science fiction tv series in the name… Just one of many possible options with at least as much appeal as ‘Gnome Files’.)
Learn to read more carefully, the header says what program it is: DTP.
Actually, you really are bad at chosing article bodies. Firstly, the header isn’t a part of the body, and should not be a pre-requisite for understanding what the article is talking about. Secondly, not everyone knows what ‘DTP’ stands for. Not everyone has the same set of knowledge as you do; we each care about different things.
I’ve always wondered why sites like this always seemed to go out of it’s way to bash Free Software/Open Source software like The Gimp.
Now we pretty much know why. They’re more interested in pushing *Commerical* software like PageStream and the like to people who quite frankly *DON’T* need it.
“I’ve always wondered why sites like this always seemed to go out of it’s way to bash Free Software/Open Source software like The Gimp.”
Well I can’t speak for this site but in general that’s a Photoshop user issue. Photoshop users HATE the Gimp. They hate people who like the GIMP or think it worth using even more. Every time there is a GIMP article anywhere the Photoshop users come out of the wordwork to bash the hell out of GIMP. They are in fact the nastiest, most rigid, harshest users I’ve ever seen on the net. They really make the Linux zealots look nice and resonable. I have no idea why that is but I simply don’t even read GIMP articles on tech sites sites anymore because all of the posts end up being laundry lists of pointing out how perfect Photoshop is and how GIMP can’t do x,y,or z.
>I’ve always wondered why sites like this always seemed to >go out of it’s way to bash Free Software/Open Source
>software like The Gimp.
WTF are you talking about? WHO is bashing FOSS software? ARE YOU DREAMING, or are you making up things reading stuff the WAY you want to???
Regarding the Gimp in particular, I was very clear: it is a good program for unix, but it is by no means a real competitor to Photoshop. That’s the freaking truth, you LIKE IT OR NOT.
Get a grip.
It would be nice if your news articles specified what the program was. It just says the name of the program and that it has been released, not what kind of program it is.
DTP stands for desktop publishing. And couldn’t you figure out that software with the names “Scribus” and “PageStream” were desktop publishing applications?
DTP stands for desktop publishing. And couldn’t you figure out that software with the names “Scribus” and “PageStream” were desktop publishing applications?
No, I didn’t know what DTP stands for, else I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I don’t know what significance “Scribus” and “PageStream” have. Scribus could be a calligraphy program and PageStream could be a web server.