2013/4/16 LM <[email protected]> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:00 AM, William Tracy wrote: > >> >> This is new and interesting to me. How does mupdf stack up against xpdf? > > > I really haven't done any timing tests. However, I've read that mupdf was > designed by some of the ghostscript developers to be more efficient than > poppler (poppler itself being based on xpdf). If you search the web, > you'll find some timing comparisons like this one ( > http://hzqtc.github.io/2012/04/poppler-vs-mupdf.html ). > > mupdf has very basic features. I find it runs faster than any other pdf > viewers I've tried on my netbook and laptop. If I were to pick just one > pdf viewer for my system, at this point, I'd go with mupdf. There are some > other projects that use the mupdf engine and may add more features. There > are far fewer projects based on mupdf than on poppler though. > > If you're interested, you can find more on mupdf at http://www.mupdf.com/ > One other interesting thing about mupdf, there are no real Gnome or KDE > dependencies ( http://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/mupdf ). > > Sincerely, > Laura > http://www.distasis.com/cpp > > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
I'm glad to see a mupdf user in the BLFS Support List. I've tried to install mupdf in my LFS system before, but I failed due to dependencies. So I hope it can be written in BLFS book.
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
