Re: pdf editor
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
>John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
>> $EDITOR/TeTex and dvipdfm? But why you would force people to deal
>> with Adobe right now is beyond me
>
>It is not necessary to deal with Adobe to deal with PDF files.
No, there's xpdf _et al_, but the .pdf spec was by Adobe, and Acrobat is
still the canonical .pdf reader... Which is one of the reasons I thought
elcomsoft's translator was nonsensical: it translated from ebook to
another Adobe product.
>> If you want to change the .pdf, might I suggest changing the
>> filetype to something that WASN'T developed by lowlifes?
>
>Are you also suggesting we remove PostScript from any printing
>toolchains? That would make it hard to print to many printers, and
>impossible to print from many applications.
Is it REALLY that easy to print from Linux now? Is there even a printing
application in the base distribution? So yes, I am suggesting that
perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at how dependent printing is on
products designed by a company that also has designs on the very freedom
of the users (I mean free as in "not incarcerated", not beer, or speech,
or any other redefinition). Compare how hard it would be to print after
removal of all Adobe-originated products to the hard labor done in
Leavenworth. Now remember that Adobe just attempted to send somebody
there for FIVE YEARS for doing nothing more than writing a computer
program. Adobe later withdrew the complaint, but Sklyarov is still facing
the jail time. Adobe doesn't need Debian's help to do it to the next
Sklyarov. Since postscript, .pdf, and ebooks all make money for Adobe
(postscript and .pdf mostly in residuals), it's time to stop using them.
Sic semper tyrannis.
>
--
void hamlet()
{#define question=((bb)||(!bb))}
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu. that's who!
Reply to: