what about acroread in squeeze i386?
in [Debian]
|
From: Johann Spies on 1 Mar 2010 03:50 On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 07:19:27PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > > Umm... what exactly is wrong with xpdf? I use it routinely, authoring > and refereeing. I find it light and fast. evince works too, though I > find xpdf faster. I do not understand your problem. You can also look at okular. I am presently preparing a beamer presentation which contains a video and I could get it to work with okular - something which neither acroread nor evince/xpdf could do. Regards Johann -- Johann Spies Telefoon: 021-808 4599 Informasietegnologie, Universiteit van Stellenbosch "The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters...Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." Psalms 23:1,2,6 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100301084800.GD394(a)sun.ac.za
From: Mathieu Malaterre on 1 Mar 2010 04:10 On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Drew Parsons <dparsons(a)debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 09:08 +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote: >> Unfortunately, for dealing with most editors of scientific journals, >> and for personal use of the scientific literature, either as author or >> referee, neither the readers you mention, nor any one other I know >> except acroread, are enough. Because of these problems (which are not >> unique to acroread), most my colleagues have turned to either >> Microsoft or Apple for the desktop. I intend to stick to Debian also >> for the desktop, but such affairs are wasting our time. We can not >> devote more time to have acroread running than for a scientific code. >> At present, the second task has become easier that the trivial affair >> of having office tools running. > > > Umm... what exactly is wrong with xpdf? I use it routinely, authoring > and refereeing. I find it light and fast. evince works too, though I > find xpdf faster. I do not understand your problem. xpdf will disappear soon because of the usual 'security' issues... Unfortunately it was much faster and at least for me did render correctly pdf files. See this evince bug (regression from xpdf): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562104 But at least for me I can use acroread on a daily basis on my amd64 box (thanks to debian-multimedia) 2cts -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/bf0c3b3f1003010104k43a098aeg99786f4c8d27e0c8(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Drew Parsons on 1 Mar 2010 05:30 On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:04 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Drew Parsons <dparsons(a)debian.org> wrote: > > > >what exactly is wrong with xpdf? I use it routinely, authoring > > and refereeing. I find it light and fast. evince works too, though I > > find xpdf faster. > > xpdf will disappear soon because of the usual 'security' issues... > Unfortunately it was much faster and at least for me did render > correctly pdf files. Oh, that's distressing, I didn't realise xpdf was in such a parlous state. Looks like there's a team forming around though. If it doesn't make it into squeeze, at least it won't be removed from unstable, you could keep trying it from there. Hopefully the team will get it back into shape. > See this evince bug (regression from xpdf): > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562104 Yeah, I'm not so fond of evince myself. I particularly despise the way it hides its own identity, calling itself "Document Viewer" (*which* document viewer??!!) But that's more of a systemic problem with Gnome than with evince. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267437834.6859.15.camel(a)pug
From: Jochen Schulz on 1 Mar 2010 05:50 Francesco Pietra: > > Unfortunately, for dealing with most editors of scientific journals, > and for personal use of the scientific literature, either as author or > referee, neither the readers you mention, nor any one other I know > except acroread, are enough. You don't mention which features the alternatives to Adobe Reader are lacking. > I am also surprised about the Debian policy for deb packages of > scientific code: they provide the last version for testing or sid, > while scientific code is run on stable Debian. So, the developer do > much work for nothing. This is not a special policy for scientific packages, it is the general policy. It always takes a lot of time for a specific package version to become part of a stable release. If this is a serious problem for you, then you should run testing/unstable or, if this is not an option either, try another distribution with shorter release cycles. Alternatively, you can always build from source. Or, if you need a newer version of a package built for stable, you can try finding it on backports.org. J. -- Scientists know what they are talking about. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
From: thib on 1 Mar 2010 05:50 Drew Parsons wrote: > Yeah, I'm not so fond of evince myself. I particularly despise the way > it hides its own identity, calling itself "Document Viewer" (*which* > document viewer??!!) But that's more of a systemic problem with Gnome > than with evince. Checkout epdfview, basically evince without the gnome stuff. -thib -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4B8B9A0C.7070400(a)stammed.net
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Asus WL-167g (rt2500usb) DHCP fails Next: Fresh Debian Install w/o Exim? |