Yes, Gary, you are quite correct in all your observations. :-) Now I will Answer your Questions and Reply to your Comments, as best I can: Q: ... what is bad about offering choices? A: It's more work, and if ROI is negative it should not be done. Q: Why should one go through [more work] just to produce the PDF version? A: Exactly. C: There is an advantage of having both forms (PDF and ODT [sic]) ... R: You and others keep saying that, and I keep asking, "What _is_ the advantage of PDF (or of any non-OOo format)?" C: ... to produce the PDF version ... resembles needlessly reinventing wheels. R: I agree completely.
C: There are ... software ... in addition to Adobe for producing/reading PDFs. R: So people say. I have found only one free really good producer and no free really good readers, have you? And that's not the point anyway.* C: I find that making a ... dig against Adobe (or MS or whatever) adds much to the situation. R: Thank you, but it wasn't a dig against Adobe. I refer instead to the conclusion jumped to without thinking by many that PDF is the obvious/only/best way to distribute docs, when its _only_ advertised/real advantage is platform independence (via the free but nagware Reader), and if we are distributing OOo, we are _already_ providing platform independence, and much more, as I explained in my original post in this thread. My "dig" was an attempt to point out that we should not contribute to the world's unthinking tendency to use Adobe (reader or writer) even when there is no reason, e.g. the ubiquitous statement on zillions of WWW pages, "to read these PDF's, you _need_ _Adobe_ Reader", which is (a) almost always not true, and (b) contributing un-earned benefit to a company which hardly welcomes competition. C: I still purchase some proprietary or shareware apps. R: So do I. But only when ROI is positive, e.g. I thereby deliver to my customers something of value. For our customers, OOo users, producing a PDF has not been shown to do that. * To produce a really good PDF (always perfect, AFAIK) free, print the source to a good PostScript printer driver set to FILE, save to a .ps, convert the .ps to PDF via Ghostscript. But again, that's not the point. The point is, as I originally said, "a PDF on an OOo CD (or for an OOo user) does [nothing] that a native OOo document does not do at least as well". It seems to me that, for the users, all the PDFs represent is more restrictions, and the need for more software (to read them). To All: I welcome all arguments; they help us arrive at the best conclusion (and in some cases provide entertainment), with the confidence that we have thoroughly considered all alternatives (in fact, I admit to contributing nothing but such arguments myself). I would also welcome anyone who contributes an objective answer to my original point about the ROI of the OOo doc development team producing/distributing PDFs (or, for that matter, any form of docs other than native ODF/OOo except for Installation How-To as noted). Of course, I am assuming the on-line WWW pages are the "system of record". Respectfully, Jim Harris "Oh, no, Sir; you misunderstand me. On any given point of debate, I care not a whit whether I was right or wrong, but I care a great deal about knowing which of the two I have been." * What famous master of Debate said that (or something very close to it)? Anyway, I agree. JH >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1:23 PM 6/25/200725/2007 >>> Jim Harris wrote: > > Clearly, Jean, those are irrefutable statements. > > However, I still don't see how a PDF on an OOo CD (or for an OOo user) does > anything that a native OOo document does not do at least as well (except, of > course, increase Adobe's dominance). > > Further, the OOo files (and many other standard formats) have the huge > advantage of editability (e.g. changing font size then printing for readers > with vision impairment) with free tools. Of course, this requires that there > is available at least one workstation that can read the OOo installation > instructions. For the case where this is not true, the installation > instructions (only) could be in PDF (or text/Unicode, or ODF, or even M$ Word > .doc) so they could be read (and even edited), again with free tools, before > OOo is installed. > > Did I miss a communication explaining any advantages of PDF? > > Jim > There is an advantage of having both forms (PDF and ODT) of the docs being readily available. Realizing that there are different strokes for different folks, what is bad about offering choices? Why should one go through an intermediate step with OOo, just to produce the PDF version? Somehow, that resembles needlessly reinventing wheels. Besides, I detect a distinct bias against proprietary software vendors in the above post. There are now plenty of other software vendors in addition to Adobe for producing/reading PDFs. MS now has provisions for doing that in its Office Professional 2007. Even freeware apps can create or read PDFs. I find that making a (socialistic or anti-freemarket?) dig against Adobe (or MS or whatever) adds much to the situation. I, for one, do not despise having to actually ***pay*** for the software I use if it isn't available elsewhere for free. And even if free versions are available, I still purchase some proprietary or shareware apps. BTW, not everybody produces useful goods and services for free. -- Gary Schnabl 2775 Honorah Detroit MI 48209 (734) 245-3324 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
