Adobe Reader lossage
in [UK Mac]
|
From: SM on 26 Apr 2010 07:15 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Zune of Google Like Stuart -- cut that out to reply
From: Richard Tobin on 26 Apr 2010 08:01 In article <1jhk0dh.1j48wkz1yv0nh2N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >I don't recall Adobe inventing PostScript. In fact, I'd bet that no-one >here had heard of Adobe until some years after the founders had come up >with `the universal printer lingo'. >Not sure when that was, exactly - I recall having read in the past that >PS was assembled at `the end of the 70s', but the Wikip article says >1982. I first heard of Postscript - and got the red and blue books - in the mid 80s (probably 1984 or 85), when it was used in the new-fangled laser printers we had. -- Richard
From: zoara on 26 Apr 2010 10:27 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > [Wage slavery in one of its more odious manifestations, is that, and > one > reason I'll never work for IBM or similar. No-one's ever got me to > sign > a contract like that, not even when I wrote for publication. They > thought they had, but they hadn't...] I also refuse to work for IBM. I'm still waiting for the job offer so I can actually tell them I refuse, but in the meantime I can refuse without it. > The Wikip page on InDesign is wrong on many counts - it's a long way > from the first DTP package to offer the features listed on the Wikip > page. TeX got there first on ALL the features listed as `firsts' in > history of InDesign AFAICT. Cross-platform DTP, that's what TeX is, > built-in cross-platform scripting, the ability to run *ANY* code (JS > or > otherwise[1]) from inside TeX (or not, if forbidden under user > control). Isn't DTP defined as being WYSIWYG? From what you've posted here in the past, Tex seems anything but WYSIWYG... > (and I've not corrected it on account of having no urge at all to dig > up > the proofs required to deal with Wikip's braindead regular editors) That makes my head spin. Are you saying that Wikipedia's editors require more rigorous fact checking than you consider sensible? -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: zoara on 26 Apr 2010 10:28 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Does anyone remember Adobe when instead of being rubbish, they > > > were > > > inventing PostScript and programs like Illustrator and Photoshop? > > > > I know what you mean. Nowadays they seem to be the New Microsoft. > > No, Google is the new Microsoft. In a way, Google is really the new > IBM, > except that when Microsoft used to be the new IBM, it did it so much > that people stopped remembering what the IBM was. Now Microsoft is > starting to become what the actual IBM became after Microsoft became > the > new IBM, but people still remember it. So what's the new Google? -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Peter Ceresole on 26 Apr 2010 10:53
zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > I also refuse to work for IBM. I'm still waiting for the job offer so I > can actually tell them I refuse, but in the meantime I can refuse > without it. That is, of course, your privilege. I came across IBM in a serious way (as opposed to once buying one of their extremely fragile laptops) at the preparation for the Atlanta Olympics. They (and Swatch) were the two highlights; Swatch because they, among all those hideously serious American corporate participants, were actually fun (and competent) and IBM because they were stringing together many levels of complicated software and after day one, it actually worked. Plus they were fairly humourless, but quite free of bullshit. I remember the rest of it as being a bit of a nightmare- although the programme (Tomorrow's World) worked out quite well. -- Peter |