6:23 p.m.
Hello,
On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-cidAD...
with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
displays instead of the document the following message:
"To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
I saw some references to this message on the web, but could not make
sense of it.
Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative? Thanks!
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
3:33 a.m.
Marc Wilson wrote:
No, that's a licensing problem. CDRecord's license is
incompatible
with the GPL.
That's not the problem. The problem is that parts of it are GPL and parts
are incompatible with the GPL, so the licensing is incompatible with itself
and so the software cannot be distributed under any license.
Kevin Kofler
8:24 a.m.
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
> wrote:
>> Not really. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. :-/
>
> Why, how would you have done it?
Requiring only one form? Normal, non-bureaucrat people hate filling out
forms, the less there is to fill out, the better! And if the forms cannot be
filled out by a human without software assistance, something is really,
really wrong! Not to mention the reliance on proprietary software, which is
totally inappropriate for a government office.
This NIH grant application consists of forms about several separate
aspects: the research plan, the time line, the budget etc. Usually,
several people - researchers and administrators - work together to
fill out the forms. Some of these forms are only needed or used in
particular circumstances, for example, if one of the researchers need
to document their visa status, or if a project depends on specific
support from elsewhere. Merging all forms into one flat form does not
seem very helpful to me.
Software is in principle not necessary to fill out the forms, but it
helps. It copies values from one place to another and checks whether
what you entered makes sense. Without software support, you would have
more work and higher chances of submitting an incorrect application.
People have done such applications on paper in the past, though now
NIH insists electronic submission.
That NIH insists on using Adobe Reader is indeed disturbing. But
then, what is the alternative to Adobe Reader, if free software
apparently does not support the latest PDF?
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
8:34 p.m.
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:59:39 -0500
Mail Lists wrote:
That is plain silly - it should call itself what it is - evince.
People have tried to fight that fight before to no avail :-).
I finally learned all the menu entries are stashed under
/usr/share/applications/ and grep in there when I want to
find the actual name for an app.
3:11 a.m.
Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in
Fedora unless
you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take the respected cdrecord name
and put wodim in its place. This seems to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex
watches, the user get something other than what they expect.
In which case please remmeber to do the following
mv ssh openssh
mv sshd opensshd
mv cp gnucp
mv ls gnuls
etc..
Alan
5:52 p.m.
Tony Nelson wrote:
On 10-02-08 10:20:42, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in
>>> Fedora unless you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take
>>> he respected cdrecord name and put wodim in its place. This seems
>>> to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex watches, the user get
>>> something other than what they expect.
>>>
>> In which case please remmeber to do the following
>>
>> mv ssh openssh
>> mv sshd opensshd
>> mv cp gnucp
>> mv ls gnuls
>>
>> etc..
>>
> Do you feel that any of these accept the commands of the original and
> are incapable of correctly producing the desired result?
>
> Neither do I.
>
> But wodim can not claim that behavior, and so should be called by its
> own name (and only that name, although I've used a few other names,
> too, after wasting media).
Cdrecord cannot legally be distributed by anyone, due to license
problems. Contact the author and complain. Be aware that he is
a difficult person who thinks he is as good a lawyer as he is a
sysadmin.
I seem to have failed to make the point, I'm not asking anyone to distribute
cdrecord, just to stop distributing a partially broken program of the same name.
Or linking that program to cdrecord, or in any way providing a non-functional
program which fails on Blu-ray, and is unreliable at best on SVCD and DVD-DL.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
2:49 p.m.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I am not complaining that real cdrecord is not included,
>> I'm complaining that something else which works differently is called
>> cdrecord, and if I forget to put in the real thing I wind up with f___ing
>> $3 Blu-Ray coasters! I don't care if it is compatible at the command line
>> level, just that it is compatible at the "works correctly" level.
>
> Don't use wodim for Blu-Ray (nor DVDs), use growisofs, that's what it's
for.
> http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/Blu-ray/
>
> K3b only ever uses cdrecord or wodim for CDs. For DVDs, and in the latest
> beta version which adds Blu-Ray support, for Blu-Ray, it uses growisofs
> instead. It does that for a reason.
>
Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in Fedora unless
you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take the respected cdrecord name
and put wodim in its place. This seems to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex
watches, the user get something other than what they expect.
Real cdrecord seems to work correctly for Blu-Ray, and user would be far better
served by not having any cdrecord in a Fedora system at all, and letting
rpmfusion provide the real thing.
I would not be unhappy without cdrecord, I can supply it. Having a program
pretending to be cdrecord which doesn't do Blu-Ray and seems not to do SVCD (I
only tried a few, the files worked with real cdrecord) correctly. No, not much
demand for SVCD.
I fully agree with You, and I interpellate too for relegation of real
cdrecord on rpmfusion. With actual excuse I have many problems, as well
as many peoples in my neighbourhood.
Franta
11:43 a.m.
On 10-02-08 10:20:42, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in
>> Fedora unless you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take
>> he respected cdrecord name and put wodim in its place. This seems
>> to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex watches, the user get
>> something other than what they expect.
>>
>
> In which case please remmeber to do the following
>
> mv ssh openssh
> mv sshd opensshd
> mv cp gnucp
> mv ls gnuls
>
> etc..
>
Do you feel that any of these accept the commands of the original and
are incapable of correctly producing the desired result?
Neither do I.
But wodim can not claim that behavior, and so should be called by its
own name (and only that name, although I've used a few other names,
too, after wasting media).
Cdrecord cannot legally be distributed by anyone, due to license
problems. Contact the author and complain. Be aware that he is
a difficult person who thinks he is as good a lawyer as he is a
sysadmin.
--
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
9:51 a.m.
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:20:42 -0500
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in Fedora unless
>> you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take the respected cdrecord name
>> and put wodim in its place. This seems to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex
>> watches, the user get something other than what they expect.
>>
>
> In which case please remmeber to do the following
>
> mv ssh openssh
> mv sshd opensshd
> mv cp gnucp
> mv ls gnuls
>
> etc..
>
Do you feel that any of these accept the commands of the original and
are incapable of correctly producing the desired result?
There are certainly cases that is true for almost any command. There have
been many times where ssh and openssh were not fully compatible.
An even more classic example is "sendmail" where multiple commands that
are not sendmail claim to be that on many systems and provide interface
compatibility. This to the point that standards now recognize it as an
interface naming not just an application.
Alan
9:20 a.m.
Alan Cox wrote:
> Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in
Fedora unless
> you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take the respected cdrecord name
> and put wodim in its place. This seems to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex
> watches, the user get something other than what they expect.
>
In which case please remmeber to do the following
mv ssh openssh
mv sshd opensshd
mv cp gnucp
mv ls gnuls
etc..
Do you feel that any of these accept the commands of the original and
are incapable of correctly producing the desired result?
Neither do I.
But wodim can not claim that behavior, and so should be called by its
own name (and only that name, although I've used a few other names, too,
after wasting media).
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
4:50 p.m.
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Just to be clear, I am not complaining that real cdrecord is not included,
> I'm complaining that something else which works differently is called
> cdrecord, and if I forget to put in the real thing I wind up with f___ing
> $3 Blu-Ray coasters! I don't care if it is compatible at the command line
> level, just that it is compatible at the "works correctly" level.
Don't use wodim for Blu-Ray (nor DVDs), use growisofs, that's what it's for.
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/Blu-ray/
K3b only ever uses cdrecord or wodim for CDs. For DVDs, and in the latest
beta version which adds Blu-Ray support, for Blu-Ray, it uses growisofs
instead. It does that for a reason.
Well, the reason appears to be that cdrecord is not available in Fedora unless
you install it yourself, Fedora has chosen to take the respected cdrecord name
and put wodim in its place. This seems to me as ethical as selling replica Rolex
watches, the user get something other than what they expect.
Real cdrecord seems to work correctly for Blu-Ray, and user would be far better
served by not having any cdrecord in a Fedora system at all, and letting
rpmfusion provide the real thing.
I would not be unhappy without cdrecord, I can supply it. Having a program
pretending to be cdrecord which doesn't do Blu-Ray and seems not to do SVCD (I
only tried a few, the files worked with real cdrecord) correctly. No, not much
demand for SVCD.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
2:36 a.m.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not complaining that real cdrecord is not
included,
I'm complaining that something else which works differently is called
cdrecord, and if I forget to put in the real thing I wind up with f___ing
$3 Blu-Ray coasters! I don't care if it is compatible at the command line
level, just that it is compatible at the "works correctly" level.
Don't use wodim for Blu-Ray (nor DVDs), use growisofs, that's what it's for.
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/Blu-ray/
K3b only ever uses cdrecord or wodim for CDs. For DVDs, and in the latest
beta version which adds Blu-Ray support, for Blu-Ray, it uses growisofs
instead. It does that for a reason.
Kevin Kofler
7:47 a.m.
2010/2/3 Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)gmail.com>:
<--SNIP-- > Best, :-)
> Marko
--
Hiisi.
Registered Linux User #487982. Be counted at: http://counter.li.org/
--
Spandex is a privilege, not a right.
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 06:29:26 Hiisi wrote:
> 2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli(a)gmail.com>:
> > I definitely see a need that PDF fulfills. The free software
> > community should either fully support it or come up with an
> > alternative.
> Actually, there is one. It's called ODF (open document
format; see
> [1]). And it is in use already [2].
Does it provide automatic checking of forms you fill? Conditional questions in
forms based on previous answers? Automatic copy-paste of identical information
being asked more than once?
Yes! There's StarOffice Basic (OOoBasic) for such tasks. Sounds a bit
micro$oft, but I imagine one can load forms and smart fields using it.
I don't think there's a need for complex functionality in the document
at all. Would it be better to provide smart web-form that can produce
printable version later, wouldn't it?
5:22 a.m.
I definitely see a need that PDF fulfills. The free software
community should either fully support it or come up with an
alternative.
Send patches...
There is a need for various kinds of smart document, but it actually
makes PDF more hazardous the more scriptable it is. It becomes easier and
easier to bury other 'activities' into a form - you've no idea for
example if your tax form quiety squirrels away old versions of any field
you then re-edit (eg so they can use it to profile returns for possible
fraud), you've less idea what it communicates with.
There are already problems with "smart" electronic documents becoming
unusable for business contracts because even if digitally signed they
can contain obfuscated magic to change the value of the contract or the
completion date without changing the signature.
IMHO it's unfortunate Adobe is loading so much stuff into PDF rather than
clearly separating out 'trustable thing I distribute and read' from
'application in a document'.
Alan
4:57 a.m.
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 06:29:26 Hiisi wrote:
2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli(a)gmail.com>:
> I definitely see a need that PDF fulfills. The free software
> community should either fully support it or come up with an
> alternative.
Actually, there is one. It's called ODF (open document format; see
[1]). And it is in use already [2].
Does it provide automatic checking of forms you fill? Conditional questions in
forms based on previous answers? Automatic copy-paste of identical information
being asked more than once?
I can understand and appreciate how such a thing could be quite helpful when
you fill out a bunch of documents at once.
The *idea* of what PDF provides (this latest functionality that has been
discussed in this thread) is good. The *implementation* is bad and
proprietary. But unless ODF provide equivalent functionality, this bad and
proprietary implementation of a good idea is the only option, and people are
going to use it.
Best, :-)
Marko
12:29 a.m.
2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli(a)gmail.com>:
Hello,
<--SNIP-->
I definitely see a need that PDF fulfills. The free software
community should either fully support it or come up with an
alternative.
Actually, there is one. It's called ODF (open document format; see
[1]). And it is in use already [2].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Worldwide_adoption
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
--
--
Hiisi.
Registered Linux User #487982. Be counted at: http://counter.li.org/
--
Spandex is a privilege, not a right.
7:26 p.m.
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> That NIH insists on using Adobe Reader is indeed disturbing. But
> then, what is the alternative to Adobe Reader, if free software
> apparently does not support the latest PDF?
Paper, as they have used in the past? A set of regular PDFs, one per form
(and the fancy JavaScript-loaded crap as an alternative for the people who
can't figure it out)? There are plenty of alternatives which wouldn't lock
users into proprietary software. You should not give those bureaucrats a
free pass for this! (That you have to deal with it is one thing, but that
you then defend their unreasonable choice doesn't make sense.)
We all hate bureaucracy. But I do appreciate a form that tells you
if you forgot to fill out something, or takes care of boring tasks
like copying or adding.
I wish the tax forms were like this, and not like they are (e.g. "if
line 5 is greater than line 4, subtract line 4 form line 5 and enter
the result in line 6. Enter zero in line 6 otherwise" etc.)
Instead, the US Revenue Service gives you a list of private tax
software, and when I try one, I discover after hours of work that they
don't support form 1046-S.
I definitely see a need that PDF fulfills. The free software
community should either fully support it or come up with an
alternative.
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
12:07 p.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
> Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
>> wrote:
>>> Not really. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. :-/
>> Why, how would you have done it?
> Requiring only one form? Normal, non-bureaucrat people hate filling out
> forms, the less there is to fill out, the better! And if the forms cannot be
> filled out by a human without software assistance, something is really,
> really wrong! Not to mention the reliance on proprietary software, which is
> totally inappropriate for a government office.
[...]
That NIH insists on using Adobe Reader is indeed disturbing. But
then, what is the alternative to Adobe Reader, if free software
apparently does not support the latest PDF?
PDF itself is proprietary, that is the format. It is "open" in the
sense that it is published, and freely (somewhat) licensed, but it
is not public domain. I don't know of a free alternative to PDF which
is as useful.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
5:06 a.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler
<kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
wrote:
> Not really. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. :-/
Why, how would you have done it?
Requiring only one form? Normal, non-bureaucrat people hate filling out
forms, the less there is to fill out, the better! And if the forms cannot be
filled out by a human without software assistance, something is really,
really wrong! Not to mention the reliance on proprietary software, which is
totally inappropriate for a government office.
Kevin Kofler
10:14 p.m.
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> I finally decided install Adobe Reader 9. It turns out there is a
> lot more to this document than a simple 4-page form. Rather, it is a
> collection of a dozen inter-dependent forms with various embedded
> applications which do things such as saving, validation and copying
> data between forms.
What a mess!
> That explains of course, why embedded documents are used.
Not really. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. :-/
Why, how would you have done it?
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
2:34 p.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
I finally decided install Adobe Reader 9. It turns out there is a
lot more to this document than a simple 4-page form. Rather, it is a
collection of a dozen inter-dependent forms with various embedded
applications which do things such as saving, validation and copying
data between forms.
What a mess!
That explains of course, why embedded documents are used.
Not really. It's a perfect example of bureaucracy gone mad. :-/
Kevin Kofler
11:09 a.m.
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
>
> http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-
cidADOBE-FORMS-B.pdf
>
> with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
> displays instead of the document the following message:
>
> "To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
> version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
> to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
> www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
> For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
When I open this PDF with Okular (which is contained in the kdegraphics
package), I get this same message, but Okular tells me there are attached
files. Clicking on that shows me that there's another PDF file embedded,
which Okular allows me to save. That embedded PDF file opens just fine in
Okular and displays a 4-page form.
I finally decided install Adobe Reader 9. It turns out there is a
lot more to this document than a simple 4-page form. Rather, it is a
collection of a dozen inter-dependent forms with various embedded
applications which do things such as saving, validation and copying
data between forms.
That explains of course, why embedded documents are used.
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
3:31 a.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
That's interesting. What purpose could be achieved by embedding
a
PDF inside another like this?
That is the Adobe PDF history, as seen by me:
- start with a Postscript-like language avoiding Postscript problems
- good for printing!
- so I can send this pdf to you, you print it, fill the data and fax it to me
- hey, why can't the pdf file include the data, we need a web-like form
- add forms to PDF
- good, but I want to check the data you enter, web pages can do that
- add javascript to PDF
- good, but I want to send you this file too, it is related to my order
- add attachments to PDF
- good, I can have everything in a PDF, but the file is becoming huge
and it is not easy to email/store/copy....
- add splitting support to PDF
- final result: you have some pieces, which are a bad zip-like container,
which contains random stuff, including executable code (Javascript malware...)
At the same time, Unicode support is still a mess (in a format designed
for textual documents!) and features are at war among themselves
(stream rendering for progressive display while downloading vs. append-only
document modifications...).
Now implement this stuff with a big inefficient client...
... and claim you are the state of the art for "electronic paper".
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
12:52 p.m.
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
> That and putting in some hacked fork of cdrecord, I think it's called woeful,
> instead of the real thing.
No, that's a licensing problem. CDRecord's license is incompatible
with the GPL.
Just to be clear, I am not complaining that real cdrecord is not included, I'm
complaining that something else which works differently is called cdrecord, and
if I forget to put in the real thing I wind up with f___ing $3 Blu-Ray coasters!
I don't care if it is compatible at the command line level, just that it is
compatible at the "works correctly" level.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:41 a.m.
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
>
> http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-
cidADOBE-FORMS-B.pdf
>
> with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
> displays instead of the document the following message:
>
> "To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
> version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
> to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
> www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
> For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
When I open this PDF with Okular (which is contained in the kdegraphics
package), I get this same message, but Okular tells me there are attached
files. Clicking on that shows me that there's another PDF file embedded,
which Okular allows me to save. That embedded PDF file opens just fine in
Okular and displays a 4-page form.
That's interesting. What purpose could be achieved by embedding a
PDF inside another like this? What is a standard PDF viewer supposed
to do with the file - simply display the embedded file or display
something else? Is it likely that this has been done intentionally to
discourage using anything other than Adobe Reader (or at least one
obeying a newer standard)?
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
3:29 a.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-
cidADOBE-FORMS-B.pdf
with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
displays instead of the document the following message:
"To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
When I open this PDF with Okular (which is contained in the kdegraphics
package), I get this same message, but Okular tells me there are attached
files. Clicking on that shows me that there's another PDF file embedded,
which Okular allows me to save. That embedded PDF file opens just fine in
Okular and displays a 4-page form.
Kevin Kofler
2:26 a.m.
2010/1/30 Chris Smart <mail(a)christophersmart.com>:
PDF 1.4 is an open standard, but Adobe products tend to
"extent" the
standard which can make their PDFs incompatible with standards based
readers. Most annoying..
Looks like PDF has been updated to 1.7, which is ISO standard 32000-1.
"http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1141"
I guess free products don't yet support 1.7..
-c
7:47 p.m.
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Marc Wilson <msw(a)cox.net> wrote:
From: Marc Wilson <msw(a)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Document Viewer can not open latest PDF?
To: "Community support for Fedora users" <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 4:41 PM
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill
Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
wrote:
> That and putting in some hacked fork of cdrecord, I
think it's called woeful,
> instead of the real thing.
No, that's a licensing problem. CDRecord's license is
incompatible
with the GPL.
It became incompatible with Debian, and thus the GPL :(, nothing said
here will change it :(
Fedora, OpenSuSE and others followed suit. They made a choice and that was to include the
replacement. Like get a Pepsi (TM) instead of a Coke :)
> In general things should appear under their real name
> for purposes of knowing where the bugs are and what
you're really using.
No, in general the belief is that it's better for an
application to
appear as what it *does*, rather than what it *is*, so that
stupid
people are empowered. People to whom it matters
should know how to
change it anyway.
Not that I care about evince at all... that's what Adobe
Reader is for.
Here Adobe Reader is *CLOSED SOURCE* and free alternatives like Evince and Okular
are better for me IMHO. I don't want to deal with proprietary software and it(Adobe
Reader) is not like cdrecord(original). Cdrecord(cdrtools) is opensource just like you
mention, but GPL incompatible because of differences with the author and Debian's
maintainers :(
--
Best Regards,
Antonio
6:41 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> wrote:
That and putting in some hacked fork of cdrecord, I think it's
called woeful,
instead of the real thing.
No, that's a licensing problem. CDRecord's license is incompatible
with the GPL.
In general things should appear under their real name
for purposes of knowing where the bugs are and what you're really using.
No, in general the belief is that it's better for an application to
appear as what it *does*, rather than what it *is*, so that stupid
people are empowered. People to whom it matters should know how to
change it anyway.
Not that I care about evince at all... that's what Adobe Reader is for.
--
Marc Wilson
msw(a)cox.net
5:02 p.m.
On Saturday 30 January 2010, Antonio Olivares wrote:
[...]
How bout poor people that can't even get Coke/Pepsi/Dr. Pepper, but have to
settle for Sam's Choice from Sams/Walmart or HEB Cola from HEB? They are
doing it because of the economy :(, but there is nothing like the REAL
THING (TM)
That I guess may not be their real choice, but it is still the one they made.
:)
On topic here,
Naww, just a definite maybe. Off topic that is.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
It's ten o'clock; do you know where your processes are?
4:55 p.m.
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett(a)verizon.net> wrote:
From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett(a)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Document Viewer can not open latest PDF?
To: "Community support for Fedora users" <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 2:13 PM
On Saturday 30 January 2010, Mail
Lists wrote:
>On 01/30/2010 04:34 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> It's like asking for Coke and getting Pepsi, no
matter how great someone
>> else thinks it is, it's not what you asked for,
wanted, or thought it
>> was. ;-(
>
> They are both soft drinks .. so in fact you got
Dr Pepper - same color
>also a drink ... 8=)
Yup, they are all sorta wet, and all loaded with enough
aspartame to kill a
lab rat, but if I ask for a diet coke and get something
else, somebodies
gonna wear it & it isn't going to be me...
How bout poor people that can't even get Coke/Pepsi/Dr. Pepper, but have to settle for
Sam's Choice from Sams/Walmart or HEB Cola from HEB? They are doing it because of the
economy :(, but there is nothing like the REAL THING (TM)
On topic here,
Document Viewer is evince for users using Gnome/XFCE and it is okular for users using KDE.
Since I use the three desktops it can mean any of them :)
Regards,
Antonio
4:13 p.m.
On Saturday 30 January 2010, Mail Lists wrote:
On 01/30/2010 04:34 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> It's like asking for Coke and getting Pepsi, no matter how great someone
> else thinks it is, it's not what you asked for, wanted, or thought it
> was. ;-(
They are both soft drinks .. so in fact you got Dr Pepper - same color
also a drink ... 8=)
Yup, they are all sorta wet, and all loaded with enough aspartame to kill a
lab rat, but if I ask for a diet coke and get something else, somebodies
gonna wear it & it isn't going to be me...
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
World War Three can be averted by adherence to a strictly enforced dress
code!
3:55 p.m.
On 01/30/2010 04:34 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
It's like asking for Coke and getting Pepsi, no matter how great
someone else
thinks it is, it's not what you asked for, wanted, or thought it was. ;-(
They are both soft drinks .. so in fact you got Dr Pepper - same color
also a drink ... 8=)
3:34 p.m.
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:59:39 -0500
Mail Lists wrote:
> That is plain silly - it should call itself what it is - evince.
People have tried to fight that fight before to no avail :-).
I finally learned all the menu entries are stashed under
/usr/share/applications/ and grep in there when I want to
find the actual name for an app.
That and putting in some hacked fork of cdrecord, I think it's called woeful,
instead of the real thing. In general things should appear under their real name
for purposes of knowing where the bugs are and what you're really using.
It's like asking for Coke and getting Pepsi, no matter how great someone else
thinks it is, it's not what you asked for, wanted, or thought it was. ;-(
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
2:46 a.m.
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 19:22 +1100, Chris Smart wrote:
Same thing with Okular (KDE4).
It's my understanding that all of the currently available free PDF
readers on Linux use the poppler library to render the PDF.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
2:22 a.m.
2010/1/30 Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli(a)gmail.com>:
Hello,
On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-cidADOBE-FORMS-B.pdf
with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
displays instead of the document the following message:
Same thing with Okular (KDE4).
Interestingly enough, it also says there are embedded documents, which
I can save out. There's another pdf in there about "Budget" or
something..
PDF 1.4 is an open standard, but Adobe products tend to "extent" the
standard which can make their PDFs incompatible with standards based
readers. Most annoying..
-c
7:59 p.m.
On 01/29/2010 08:29 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
There is no RPM named DocumentViewer. However, I *do* have evince
installed on my F11 machine, and when it opens it claims to be "Document
Viewer". SO, I would say what you are using is indeed "evince". File
you bug report against it. (thanks for the screenshot)
That is plain silly - it should call itself what it is - evince.
It would be fine for it to say - "evince a pdf document viewer" . but
just document viewer ? mmm what doc ? what program ? ug.
7:29 p.m.
On 01/29/2010 08:20 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Kevin J. Cummings
<cummings(a)kjchome.homeip.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure if "Document Viewer" is a Fedora generic tool that is
> configurable to point to one specific tool (preferred application) or not.
It presents itself as an application that calls itself "Document
Viewer" (see attached screenshot).
There is no RPM named DocumentViewer. However, I *do* have evince
installed on my F11 machine, and when it opens it claims to be "Document
Viewer". SO, I would say what you are using is indeed "evince". File
you bug report against it. (thanks for the screenshot)
Take care
Oliver
--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome(a)rcn.com
cummings(a)kjchome.homeip.net
cummings(a)kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
7:20 p.m.
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Kevin J. Cummings
<cummings(a)kjchome.homeip.net> wrote:
I'm not sure if "Document Viewer" is a Fedora generic
tool that is
configurable to point to one specific tool (preferred application) or not.
It presents itself as an application that calls itself "Document
Viewer" (see attached screenshot).
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
7:10 p.m.
On 01/29/2010 08:00 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 19:23 -0500, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
>> Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative?
>> Thanks!
>
> There are some PDF documents that can apparently be opened with Adobe
> Reader.
>
> You might want to add the document you cited to the bug report here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220983
BTW, is the Document Viewer the same as evince, or only made by the
same people?
There are 2 or 3(?) "document viewers" out there besides Acroread.
Evince and xpdf spring to mind immediately.
A quick "yum search PDF" says that openoffice Draw will import PDFs,
epdfview, and pdf-renderer are also out there, plus a slew of pdf2xxx
programs to convert pdfs to something else....
I'm not sure if "Document Viewer" is a Fedora generic tool that is
configurable to point to one specific tool (preferred application) or not.
Take care
Oliver
--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome(a)rcn.com
cummings(a)kjchome.homeip.net
cummings(a)kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
7 p.m.
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 19:23 -0500, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative?
> Thanks!
There are some PDF documents that can apparently be opened with Adobe
Reader.
You might want to add the document you cited to the bug report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220983
BTW, is the Document Viewer the same as evince, or only made by the
same people?
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
6:53 p.m.
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 19:23 -0500, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative?
> Thanks!
There are some PDF documents that can apparently be opened with Adobe
Reader.
You might want to add the document you cited to the bug report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220983
Is it the same bug? The comments there talk about black boxes. I, on
the other hand, see no black boxes, but the message I quoted.
Take care
Oliver
--
Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist
Systems Biology Linker at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/sybil)
Turning Knowledge Data into Models
Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling
http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
6:43 p.m.
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 19:23 -0500, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative?
Thanks!
There are some PDF documents that can apparently be opened with Adobe
Reader.
You might want to add the document you cited to the bug report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220983
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
6:41 p.m.
On 01/29/2010 05:28 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 01/29/2010 07:23 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
>
>
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-cidAD...
>
> with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
> displays instead of the document the following message:
>
> "To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
> version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
> to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
> www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
> For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
>
> I saw some references to this message on the web, but could not make
> sense of it.
>
> Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative? Thanks!
>
It opens just fine in the version of Adobe Reader I have installed
(Version 9.3, dated 12/22/09) on F11.
> Take care
> Oliver
>
>
The message is coming from evince not acroread. Latest acroread (9.3)
opens it fine.
Paolo
6:28 p.m.
On 01/29/2010 07:23 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,
On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-cidAD...
with the default Document Viewer, and the Document Viewer opens and
displays instead of the document the following message:
"To view the full contents of this document, you need a later
version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade
to the latest version of Adobe Reader from
www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html"
I saw some references to this message on the web, but could not make
sense of it.
Does this mean I need Adobe Reader or is there a F12 Alternative? Thanks!
It opens just fine in the version of Adobe Reader I have installed
(Version 9.3, dated 12/22/09) on F11.
Take care
Oliver
--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome(a)rcn.com
cummings(a)kjchome.homeip.net
cummings(a)kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
5:03 p.m.
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
That NIH insists on using Adobe Reader is indeed disturbing. But
then, what is the alternative to Adobe Reader, if free software
apparently does not support the latest PDF?
Paper, as they have used in the past? A set of regular PDFs, one per form
(and the fancy JavaScript-loaded crap as an alternative for the people who
can't figure it out)? There are plenty of alternatives which wouldn't lock
users into proprietary software. You should not give those bureaucrats a
free pass for this! (That you have to deal with it is one thing, but that
you then defend their unreasonable choice doesn't make sense.)
Kevin Kofler
5187
days inactive
5198
days old
46 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
Alan Cox -
Antonio Olivares -
Bill Davidsen -
Chris Smart -
Frank Cox -
Franta Hanzlík -
Gene Heskett -
Genes MailLists -
Hiisi -
Kevin Cummings -
Kevin Kofler -
Marc Wilson -
Marko Vojinovic -
Mike McCarty -
Oliver Ruebenacker -
Paolo Galtieri -
Roberto Ragusa -
Tom Horsley -
Tony Nelson