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
<jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:30:32 +0100, Francesco Pietra <chiendarret@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.
>
Reply to: