Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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. 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 criticism is intended to be constructive, so that I have extended this reply to Debian and Vincenzo, who kindly tried to help. Have a nice day francesco On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jameson Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net wrote: On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:32 +0100, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. There are plenty of very good free pdf readers in squeeze: evince xpdf konqueror jamie. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b87c422a1003010008j6f85fb6eo757594de596b3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267431567.6859.2.ca...@pug
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100301084800.gd...@sun.ac.za
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Drew Parsons dpars...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/bf0c3b3f1003010104k43a098aeg99786f4c8d27e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:04 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Drew Parsons dpars...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267437834.6859.15.ca...@pug
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8b9a0c.7070...@stammed.net
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
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 can use Adobe Reader for Linux from www.adobe.com. Run the .bin file and follow instructions. By installing it into /usr/local, you stay out of reach of the package manager. There is an uninstall option though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100301174819.94572ed0.shi...@kpnmail.nl
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
* 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. Because of these problems (which are not unique to acroread), most my colleagues have turned to either Microsoft or Apple for the desktop. What problems exactly? The usual criticism of alternatives for Adobe's Reader revolves around PDF forms, which are still problematic to fill out. Embedded Flash and Javascript are obviously problematic, too, but it seems that no one misses *that*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tysz3iq1@mid.deneb.enyo.de
what about acroread in squeeze i386?
What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. thanks francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b87c422a1002281030k46e3214tf012b696a121e...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
They moved to non-free, see http://debian-multimedia.org/. -- enzotib 2010/2/28 Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. thanks francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b87c422a1002281030k46e3214tf012b696a121e...@mail.gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/756bdd601002281052n56c36fd4pecaf8775719a0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com writes: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. Out of curiosity, what is particularly inefficient about Okular or Evince? Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mxytb1um@eku238261.eku.edu
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
Francesco Pietra wrote: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. I am running 386 acroread on a 686 squeeze box with the only problem being the print option for Odd an Even pages works backwards. I have not been able to use acroread on my 64bit box for months now. Same goes for cups, OK on 386, none on 64 bit. Both running squeeze. Wayne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8ac8bd.1010...@gmail.com
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:32 +0100, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. There are plenty of very good free pdf readers in squeeze: evince xpdf konqueror jamie. pgpeAVq6Qqpjy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 06:40:14PM -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote: On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:32 +0100, Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com wrote: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. There are plenty of very good free pdf readers in squeeze: evince xpdf konqueror Konqueror? I thought kpdf and Okular; I know for a fact that kpdf embeds into Konqueror (I may be wrong, though). Kumar -- Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk? Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !! -- Felix von Leitner, leit...@inf.fu-berlin.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100228235101.gb1...@146653177.ece.utexas.edu
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
vi lovers and minimalists should look into apvlv for yet another GTK alternative: http://code.google.com/p/apvlv/ And since we're talking about squeeze: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/apvlv -thib -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b8b03a0.7050...@stammed.net
Re: what about acroread in squeeze i386?
2010/2/28 Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com: Do you see any mistake in my sources.list? deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze main non-free # deb http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/debian-multimedia/ testing main # deb-src http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/debian-multimedia/ testing main deb http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/MacMolPlt/debian squeeze main deb-src http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/MacMolPlt/debian squeeze main Still unable to find acroread. thanks francesco You're right, it is not present in squeeze multimedia repos, but i think the sid version should work fine. You can find it here: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/pool/non-free/a/adobereader-enu/acroread_9.3.1-0.0_i386.deb -- enzotib On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Vincenzo Tibullo enzo...@gmail.com wrote: They moved to non-free, see http://debian-multimedia.org/. -- enzotib 2010/2/28 Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com: What about acroread in squeeze i386? The only reason here to maintain a computer with squeeze is to provide a needed tool to scientists. Why acroread acroread-mozilla acroread-plugins can't be found on debian-multimedia i386 squeeze/testing? We have to run more expensive and more energy demanding 64-bit machines with lenny to have such packages. Curious about the reason why squeeze has no efficient pdf reader. thanks francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b87c422a1002281030k46e3214tf012b696a121e...@mail.gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/756bdd601002282252p35231deeqada846216b930...@mail.gmail.com
