On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Rich Shepard wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:05:20 -0700 (PDT) > From: Rich Shepard <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help; civil and on-topic" > <[email protected]> > To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help; civil and on-topic" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] ps2ascii not working: GS-8.63 > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Carlos Konstanski wrote: > >> My ps2ascii man page mentions pstotext as an alternative. It claims that >> pstotext is actually better because it takes the width of characters into >> account: > >> ps2ascii ignores the encoding and does not do especially well with >> kerning. For that you should use pstotext for postscript (but presently >> not for PDF). > > Carlos, > > pstotext is much older than ps2ascii: > > pstotext 1.9 of 2003-01-09 > Copyright (C) 1995-1998, Digital Equipment Corporation. > Modified by Ghostgum Software Pty Ltd. > > and the output is useless: > > ###### # > ############ ###### # > ## #### #### ##### ### ########## ########## ### > #### ### # # # # > ########## ###### # ############### ############# #### # #### ##### # > ############ ### # > ## ###### ##### #### > ##### ######### ########## # > ## # ##### ################# # > ## ########## > ############### # ############### #### > > Both pstotext and ps2ascii used to work flawlessly. I cannot recall when > they stopped working, but it's a PITA that they have. > > Thanks, > > Rich
Yeah, you're hating it. The other thing mentioned in my man page is that ps2ascii uses gv to do the work. Perhaps it's nothing more than a frontend to gv. When was the last update to gv or to ghostscript? Can you go back to the old version to test? Carlos _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
