Hello,
On a fully updated F12, I try to open the following link
http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/opportunities/packages/oppPA-10-063-cidADOBE...
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
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-cidADOBE...
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
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-cidADOBE...
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
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
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox theatre@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:
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
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox theatre@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:
BTW, is the Document Viewer the same as evince, or only made by the same people?
Take care Oliver
On 01/29/2010 08:00 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Frank Cox theatre@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:
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
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Kevin J. Cummings cummings@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
On 01/29/2010 08:20 PM, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello,On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Kevin J. Cummings cummings@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
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.
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.
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. ;-(
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=)
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...
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
From: Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net Subject: Re: Document Viewer can not open latest PDF? To: "Community support for Fedora users" users@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
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.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@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.
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Marc Wilson msw@cox.net wrote:
From: Marc Wilson msw@cox.net Subject: Re: Document Viewer can not open latest PDF? To: "Community support for Fedora users" users@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 4:41 PM On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@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
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
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bill Davidsen davidsen@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 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
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.
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
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).
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:20:42 -0500 Bill Davidsen davidsen@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
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.
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 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
2010/1/30 Oliver Ruebenacker curoli@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...
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
2010/1/30 Chris Smart mail@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
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.
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
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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 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".
Hello,
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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 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
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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 wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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 wrote:
Hello,On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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
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
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@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
2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker curoli@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 --
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 06:29:26 Hiisi wrote:
2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker curoli@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
2010/2/3 Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com:
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 06:29:26 Hiisi wrote:
2010/2/3 Oliver Ruebenacker curoli@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?
<--SNIP-->
Best, :-) Marko
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
-
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