So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince. So I went to get acrobat, and it seems to be truly gone.
I see a thread of people running it in Wine. I shutter at the thought, though I suppose if ya got to.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
On 12/15/2014 09:47 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
If you don't mind going beyond the repos, look for Master PDF Editor. It comes in rpm format, so you should be able to install it. I think it beats h*** out of all the Linux FOSS pdf programs. Try it and see!
doug
Master PDF editor is quite nice but, strangely, when it comes to filling in PDF forms evince works better I've found. However if you need to actually fill in a PDF that doesn't have form fields master PDF editor is the way to go.
Regards,
Kevin Martin
Sent from my Tab Pro running Kitkat!
-----Original Message----- From: Doug dmcgarrett@optonline.net To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 8:58 PM Subject: Re: So acrobat is dead for linux - long live evince?
On 12/15/2014 09:47 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
If you don't mind going beyond the repos, look for Master PDF Editor. It comes in rpm format, so you should be able to install it. I think it beats h*** out of all the Linux FOSS pdf programs. Try it and see!
doug
Kevin Martin wrote:
Master PDF editor is quite nice but, strangely, when it comes to filling in PDF forms evince works better I've found. However if you need to actually fill in a PDF that doesn't have form fields master PDF editor is the way to go.
Regards,
Kevin Martin
Sent from my Tab Pro running Kitkat!
-----Original Message----- From: Doug dmcgarrett@optonline.net To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 8:58 PM Subject: Re: So acrobat is dead for linux - long live evince?
On 12/15/2014 09:47 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
If you don't mind going beyond the repos, look for Master PDF Editor. It comes in rpm format, so you should be able to install it. I think it beats h*** out of all the Linux FOSS pdf programs. Try it and see!
doug
MasterPdfEditor is horribly slow to display my pdfs, which contain matplotlib pdfs with thousands of data points. evince is very fast at this.
MasterPdfEditor is horribly slow to display my pdfs, which contain matplotlib pdfs with thousands of data points. evince is very fast at this.
evince chokes on PDF files with heavy bitmap-image content, like dense city GIS maps. (Probably due to poorly-implemented scaling internally; gtk routines don't do scaling well.) okular handles them fine.
You have to pick-and-choose linux PDF readers depending on the application, unfortunately.
- Mike
On 12/17/2014 08:47 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
MasterPdfEditor is horribly slow to display my pdfs, which contain matplotlib pdfs with thousands of data points. evince is very fast at this.
evince chokes on PDF files with heavy bitmap-image content, like dense city GIS maps. (Probably due to poorly-implemented scaling internally; gtk routines don't do scaling well.) okular handles them fine.
You have to pick-and-choose linux PDF readers depending on the application, unfortunately.
- Mike
How about the addition of digital signatures? Is Adobe the only option here?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Roger Wells ROGER.K.WELLS@leidos.com wrote:
On 12/17/2014 08:47 AM, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
MasterPdfEditor is horribly slow to display my pdfs, which contain matplotlib pdfs with thousands of data points. evince is very fast at this.
evince chokes on PDF files with heavy bitmap-image content, like dense city GIS maps. (Probably due to poorly-implemented scaling internally; gtk routines don't do scaling well.) okular handles them fine.
You have to pick-and-choose linux PDF readers depending on the application, unfortunately.
- Mike
How about the addition of digital signatures? Is Adobe the only option here?
I gotta say there are parts of this that are quite ugly with Acrobat. Yes I get a GUI that helps me create self-signed certs and incorporate a "real" digitized signature (scanned or photographed); but it puts the signature file in a f'n obscure location and 3 out of 4 migrations to new systems and versions of Acrobat I either can't figure out where that file is, or once I find it, the new version won't eat the old signature. So now I have probably 5 self-signed digital signature files floating around all with different passwords.
And with self-signing there's no verification of the signer. All we really know is whether the document has been modified since it was signed, and maybe if the public key has since been revoked (although I'm not sure how that mechanism works). I still find it better than faxes, and I won't send PDFs with merely an image of my signature because such PDFs can be altered while providing neither party a way to prove or disprove that alteration.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet-docs/acrobatetk/tools/DigSig/Acrobat_DigitalSign...
Master PDF editor is quite nice but, strangely, when it comes to filling in PDF forms evince works better I've found. However if you need to actually fill in a PDF that doesn't have form fields master PDF editor is the way to go
Thanks a lot for the hint, the screenshots look definitivly promising - I'll give it a try tomorrow. I've been a happy evince user, but the user-interface got worse and worse over time and now it reached the point where I open find myself using AcroRead because I can't bear it anymore ;)
Best regards, Clemens
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
On 12/15/2014 10:30 PM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
I have discovered that evince doesn't seem to understand adobe's syntax of fname.pdf#page=404 ... any of these alternatives capable? Or am I missing something and evince has added that capability.
In regards to missing something, I have migrated from Fedora to Centos to test to see if I prefer stability over "latest-n-greatest" and therefore am only able to use what Centos supports. Still keeping eye on Fedora if my list of "miss that" get to be too long.
Thanks, Paul
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Ralf
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, Acrobat Pro 11 on OS X is 893MB for the actual application (the .app) which contains a bunch of resources; but there are other resources scattered elsewhere not accounted for. There are 500MB of built-in plugins ranging from Accessibility to HTML2PDF to Preflight to TouchUp. I think if you want the functionality, any app is just necessarily going to end up being really big. LibreOffice on Linux is not some Tonka Toy app (although Tonka Toys are badass, they're obviously not the Real Deal) either, and it has a commensurate size:
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
On 12/16/2014 10:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional
packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, ... LibreOffice on Linux is not some Tonka Toy app (although Tonka Toys are badass, they're obviously not the Real Deal) either, and it has a commensurate size:
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
May be, but some users, including me, dont want to use mixed Qt/GTK. Fortunately, the LO deps are not about Qt related things, as on a GTK-only system you can use LO.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Mihamina Rakotomandimby mihamina.rakotomandimby@rktmb.org wrote:
On 12/16/2014 10:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional
packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, ... LibreOffice on Linux is not some Tonka Toy app (although Tonka Toys are badass, they're obviously not the Real Deal) either, and it has a commensurate size:
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
May be, but some users, including me, dont want to use mixed Qt/GTK. Fortunately, the LO deps are not about Qt related things, as on a GTK-only system you can use LO.
I don't know what that means. My concerns would be things like: is it stable, does it perform well, support the features people need like document signing, display and print color and fonts and other content as the document creator intended, etc. It's important that there be free software that can at least create, display and print PDF/A, and ideally it should be able to create, display, modify, and print any ISO 32000 / PDF spec 1.7 document. I really doesn't understand the relevance of libraries in the evaluation metric.
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:11 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
On 12/16/2014 10:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional
packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, ... LibreOffice on Linux is not some Tonka Toy app (although Tonka Toys are badass, they're obviously not the Real Deal) either, and it has a commensurate size:
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
May be, but some users, including me, dont want to use mixed Qt/GTK.
Why not? There's absolutely no problem doing this. Evolution, Libreoffice, Chrome and Firefox are all linked to GTK libraries and I use them under KDE with no difficulty.
poc
On 12/16/2014 08:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, Acrobat Pro 11 on OS X is 893MB for the actual application (the .app) which contains a bunch of resources;
Well, I could not care less what one evil empire does to the other evil empire;)
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
Yes, ... this is an issue, as well.
Ralf
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/16/2014 08:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
Just as point of comparison, Acrobat Pro 11 on OS X is 893MB for the actual application (the .app) which contains a bunch of resources;
Well, I could not care less what one evil empire does to the other evil empire;)
Android 7.61MB. This just displays them, there's no creation or modification as far as I'm aware. So it's possible most of the code complexity is in the creation and modification.
The point is that as any software becomes more capable it necessarily gets bigger. It gets more capable because more people are using, supporting, and coding it. And users are continuously asking for new features and that means it's going to get bigger.
So I'm suggesting any successful PDF creator/modifier is going to be a big binary.
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
Yes, ... this is an issue, as well.
Well that's ridiculous because now you go down the rabbit hole of saying someone's use case is stupid and therefore that code shouldn't be in the application so that you personally don't have to download and install it. That's just untenable. Of course the developers are making subjective decisions on what features to include or not include, and what methods of development they're going to use. But the bottom line is that that size of the payload is a pretty poor metric by itself. It's next to arbitrary.
On 12/16/2014 08:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/16/2014 08:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
# dnf install libreoffice Install 85 Packages Total download size: 126 M Installed size: 393 M
Yes, ... this is an issue, as well.
Well that's ridiculous because now you go down the rabbit hole of saying someone's use case is stupid and therefore that code shouldn't be in the application so that you personally don't have to download and install it.
Where did I say this? All I said is, "libreoffice has grown fat".
Actually, I think, this applies to most of today's SW, with Linux and Linux-SW being no exception.
IMO, esp. feature-bloat, GUI-eyecandy and the average developer not caring much about resources have caused them to grow fat.
Ralf
Allegedly, on or about 16 December 2014, Chris Murphy sent:
Android 7.61MB. This just displays them, there's no creation or modification as far as I'm aware. So it's possible most of the code complexity is in the creation and modification.
The point is that as any software becomes more capable it necessarily gets bigger. It gets more capable because more people are using, supporting, and coding it. And users are continuously asking for new features and that means it's going to get bigger.
So I'm suggesting any successful PDF creator/modifier is going to be a big binary.
But when one application gets as big as an entire operating system, or even bigger?! I can't believe that a well designed application should need to be that bloated. And it's only a document handler, not a bloody virtual reality flight simulator.
On 2014-12-16 16:45, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 16 December 2014, Chris Murphy sent:
Android 7.61MB. This just displays them, there's no creation or modification as far as I'm aware. So it's possible most of the code complexity is in the creation and modification.
The point is that as any software becomes more capable it necessarily gets bigger. It gets more capable because more people are using, supporting, and coding it. And users are continuously asking for new features and that means it's going to get bigger.
So I'm suggesting any successful PDF creator/modifier is going to be a big binary.
But when one application gets as big as an entire operating system, or even bigger?! I can't believe that a well designed application should need to be that bloated. And it's only a document handler, not a bloody virtual reality flight simulator.
Have to remember that an application will offer much more than the OS. The OS is a base and the graphics is built onto the base.
In comparison to Windows 8.1, Linux (Fedora 19) with all applications is still very small. My wife's laptop with a 100G Windows partition is full. My full / is only 27G including all applications.
A base terminal OS will be very small if you want it to be.
Robin
2014-12-17 0:45 GMT+01:00, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au:
Allegedly, on or about 16 December 2014, Chris Murphy sent:
Android 7.61MB. This just displays them, there's no creation or modification as far as I'm aware. So it's possible most of the code complexity is in the creation and modification.
The point is that as any software becomes more capable it necessarily gets bigger. It gets more capable because more people are using, supporting, and coding it. And users are continuously asking for new features and that means it's going to get bigger.
So I'm suggesting any successful PDF creator/modifier is going to be a big binary.
But when one application gets as big as an entire operating system, or even bigger?! I can't believe that a well designed application should need to be that bloated. And it's only a document handler, not a bloody virtual reality flight simulator.
I understand your sentiment, but acroread is probably as big as it is because it's statically linked (or so I think; I can't check it now). That's probably their only option, given that they want to stay distro and version agnostic as much as possibble.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 16 December 2014, Chris Murphy sent:
Android 7.61MB. This just displays them, there's no creation or modification as far as I'm aware. So it's possible most of the code complexity is in the creation and modification.
The point is that as any software becomes more capable it necessarily gets bigger. It gets more capable because more people are using, supporting, and coding it. And users are continuously asking for new features and that means it's going to get bigger.
So I'm suggesting any successful PDF creator/modifier is going to be a big binary.
But when one application gets as big as an entire operating system, or even bigger?! I can't believe that a well designed application should need to be that bloated. And it's only a document handler, not a bloody virtual reality flight simulator.
For example: The Preflight plugin for Acrobat Pro on OS X is 126MB by itself. The actual preflight library is 36MB, but the bulk of what remains are localization files. There aren't separate Chinese and English builds. Each localization file is 1-3MB and there are ~20 of those.
The Comments plugin is the same thing, a ton of its 41MB size is due to localization. The stamps for "sign here" are translated into 24 languages, I have all of them.
Meanwhile the eBook plugin is merely 190KB. It's also localized, each localized file is about 4KB.
So it's just a matter of how complicated some function is, and then that gets magnified by localization. Is this bloat? Well, I don't think it's the kind of bloat from "inefficient or poorly designed coding" I think it's just a packaging and deployment decision that makes things a lot easier for Adobe, and a significant minority of customers who will use 2-3 localizations. Sure the majority who probably only use 1 language ends up storing a bunch of stuff they aren't ever going to use, but, oh well.
On 12/16/2014 01:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
But if you have already installed K3B then:
Install 1 Package (+13 Dependent packages)
Total download size: 3.2 M Installed size 9.5M
Or is there something else you use rather than K3B? (start yet another big discussion!)
On 12/17/2014 11:08 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 12/16/2014 01:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
But if you have already installed K3B then:
Install 1 Package (+13 Dependent packages)
Total download size: 3.2 M Installed size 9.5M
Or is there something else you use rather than K3B? (start yet another big discussion!)
I don't use k3b, nor do I know why I should use it rsp. what I should use them for - But that's why I said, okular likely is not an issue to KDE-users :-)
My standard desktop setup is xfce + very few GUI "Apps" + a lots of (commandline) devel tools + lots of other command line tools.
Ralf
On 12/17/2014 10:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/17/2014 11:08 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 12/16/2014 01:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 07:30 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
Okular is indeed the best pdf reader irrespective of what desktop environment you use. Evince doesn't have annotation tools as rich as Okular's.
What disqualifies okular for me is this:
# yum install okular ... Install 1 Package (+50 Dependent packages) ... Total download size: 70 M Installed size: 176 M ...
This probably doesn't matter much to kde users, but pulling in 50 additional packages and 176 M to me is a serious issue.
But if you have already installed K3B then:
Install 1 Package (+13 Dependent packages)
Total download size: 3.2 M Installed size 9.5M
Or is there something else you use rather than K3B? (start yet another big discussion!)
I don't use k3b, nor do I know why I should use it rsp. what I should use them for - But that's why I said, okular likely is not an issue to KDE-users :-)
I have used k3b on gnome desktop for a looong time. It is the CD/DVD burner tool of choice. Now that I am switching to Xfce, after being introduced to it on the Fedora 19 & 20 armv7 remixes, I still use it for my CD/DVD burning.
My standard desktop setup is xfce + very few GUI "Apps" + a lots of (commandline) devel tools + lots of other command line tools.
Fine.
On 12/18/2014 06:12 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have used k3b on gnome desktop for a looong time. It is the CD/DVD burner tool of choice. Now that I am switching to Xfce, after being introduced to it on the Fedora 19 & 20 armv7 remixes, I still use it for my CD/DVD burning.
I also used K3B for a LONG time, when I used KDE. Now I switched to Mate, and find no problem with Brasero. Have you tried it?
On 12/18/2014 09:51 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On 12/18/2014 06:12 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I have used k3b on gnome desktop for a looong time. It is the CD/DVD burner tool of choice. Now that I am switching to Xfce, after being introduced to it on the Fedora 19 & 20 armv7 remixes, I still use it for my CD/DVD burning.
I also used K3B for a LONG time, when I used KDE. Now I switched to Mate, and find no problem with Brasero. Have you tried it?
I used it once of twice on Gnome. It was not doing all the data burning that I need as well as audio.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
For me, Okular has crappy and slowish user interface and user experience. I'm always angry when programs like mc (midnight-commander) open files with Okular instead of Evince. YMMV.
PT.
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
okular won't print my pdfs correctly (I need landscape, fit to page).
On 2014-12-16 05:14, Neal Becker wrote:
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:15:50 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Being a happy KDE user, I like okular.
And I use it not just for pdf, but a whole assortment of other document formats like dvi, djvu, ps, epub, and so on.
That said, I never needed to fill any forms and such stuff into a pdf file, so I wouldn't know of any okular's advanced capabilities beyond actually displaying the file.
HTH, :-) Marko
okular won't print my pdfs correctly (I need landscape, fit to page).
I have had issues in older versions. Have not run into it lately.
Robin
evince has worked well for me for a good number of years now, and I use cups-pdf for 'printing' pdf's of web pages and such. No issues here with either. From: Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:15 PM Subject: So acrobat is dead for linux - long live evince?
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince. So I went to get acrobat, and it seems to be truly gone.
I see a thread of people running it in Wine. I shutter at the thought, though I suppose if ya got to.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
Joe Wulf wrote:
evince has worked well for me for a good number of years now, and I use cups-pdf for 'printing' pdf's of web pages and such. No issues here with either. From: Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:15 PM Subject: So acrobat is dead for linux - long live evince?
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince. So I went to get acrobat, and it seems to be truly gone.
I see a thread of people running it in Wine. I shutter at the thought, though I suppose if ya got to.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
I've been using evince for printing pdfs for years, but f20->f21 update broke it. I use either acroread or lp to print pdfs for now.
On 12/16/2014 06:13 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
Joe Wulf wrote:
evince has worked well for me for a good number of years now, and I use cups-pdf for 'printing' pdf's of web pages and such. No issues here with either. From: Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:15 PM Subject: So acrobat is dead for linux - long live evince?
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince. So I went to get acrobat, and it seems to be truly gone.
I see a thread of people running it in Wine. I shutter at the thought, though I suppose if ya got to.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
I've been using evince for printing pdfs for years, but f20->f21 update broke it. I use either acroread or lp to print pdfs for now.
Which version? I'm on 3.14.1 and have no problems printing.
Kevin
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
So had I.
Besides evince's various UI-usability issues (Admitted, these are mostly a matter of taste), https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161374 renders evince almost non-applicable to me.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
Yes to both - It works to the same extend it had on F20 and before.
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Ralf
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de said:
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Are there any alternatives to Adobe's version that implement the Javascript extensions to PDF? I know that that's the source of most of the security problems, and probably a generally bad idea, but on occasion I need to fill out PDFs that use the scripting to complete a form. AFAIK right now, that means Acrobat (full or Reader), which sucks.
On 12/15/2014 11:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
So had I.
Besides evince's various UI-usability issues (Admitted, these are mostly a matter of taste), https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161374 renders evince almost non-applicable to me.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
Yes to both - It works to the same extend it had on F20 and before.
Is there an x86_64 rpm? When I went to install this, it was going to install a bunch of i386 rpms. So I said no, until I found out...
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Ralf
On 12/16/2014 12:13 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
So had I.
Besides evince's various UI-usability issues (Admitted, these are mostly a matter of taste), https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161374 renders evince almost non-applicable to me.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
Yes to both - It works to the same extend it had on F20 and before.
Is there an x86_64 rpm? When I went to install this, it was going to install a bunch of i386 rpms. So I said no, until I found out...
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Ralf
There is no 64-bit Adobe Reader for Linux--there never was.
Have you looked at Master PDF Editor, as I mentioned in a previous post to this list?
--doug
On 12/16/2014 12:44 AM, Doug wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:13 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
So had I.
Besides evince's various UI-usability issues (Admitted, these are mostly a matter of taste), https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161374 renders evince almost non-applicable to me.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
Yes to both - It works to the same extend it had on F20 and before.
Is there an x86_64 rpm? When I went to install this, it was going to install a bunch of i386 rpms. So I said no, until I found out...
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Ralf
There is no 64-bit Adobe Reader for Linux--there never was.
Have you looked at Master PDF Editor, as I mentioned in a previous post to this list?
Not yet, but will tomorrow.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:48:57 -0500 Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:44 AM, Doug wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:13 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 12/15/2014 11:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
So had I.
Besides evince's various UI-usability issues (Admitted, these are mostly a matter of taste), https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161374 renders evince almost non-applicable to me.
I have AdbeRdr9.5.5-1_i486linux_enu.rpm here on my F20 system. Is this the last/latest and it will work on F21?
Yes to both - It works to the same extend it had on F20 and before.
Is there an x86_64 rpm? When I went to install this, it was going to install a bunch of i386 rpms. So I said no, until I found out...
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince (F20 is 3.10, F21 is 3.14)?
For now, I am using evince, firefox's built-in pdf reader and the old acroread. However, actually, I am disatified with all three of them, but haven't found a convincing alternative, yet.
Btw, I use zathura. Stable and does a good job with all the plugins in place for printing etc. However, everything is key-based and that can be bothersome for those more familiar with GUI's. Also, the manual is all over the place -- one has to read both girara and zathura documentation at www.pwmt.org to figure out, but I also found the following useful to set my rc files: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/oneiric/man5/zathurarc.5.html
HTH Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
On 12/16/2014 12:44 AM, Doug wrote:
Have you looked at Master PDF Editor, as I mentioned in a previous post to this list?
--doug
running fedora21.. tried to install Master-pdf-editor:
# rpm -i master*.rpm file / from install of master-pdf-editor-2.1.90-2.x86_64 conflicts with file from package filesystem-3.2-28.fc21.x86_64
On 12/16/2014 12:33 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:44 AM, Doug wrote:
Have you looked at Master PDF Editor, as I mentioned in a previous post to this list?
--doug
running fedora21.. tried to install Master-pdf-editor:
# rpm -i master*.rpm file / from install of master-pdf-editor-2.1.90-2.x86_64 conflicts with file from package filesystem-3.2-28.fc21.x86_64
Yep. Their rpms are crap. From what I am seeing, they are using a version of alien to convert deb binary into rpms, which produces Fedora incompatible and broken results.
Ralf
On 12/15/2014 11:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
So here I am setting up my new F21 system and of course pdf processing is a must, and on F20, I had many problems with evince.
I have an annoying issue with PDF. I have evince installed, but when I click on a PDF in a thunderbird email, it starts to open a window, then crashes. once I save the attachment to my HD, double-click opens it.. Fedora21..
On 16.12.2014, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I have an annoying issue with PDF. I have evince installed, but when I click on a PDF in a thunderbird email, it starts to open a window, then
Just tried it out of curiosity on a Lenovo laptop with bog standard F21 and thunderbird. No problems here.
On 12/16/2014 06:52 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 16.12.2014, Paul Cartwright wrote:
I have an annoying issue with PDF. I have evince installed, but when I click on a PDF in a thunderbird email, it starts to open a window, then
Just tried it out of curiosity on a Lenovo laptop with bog standard F21 and thunderbird. No problems here.
I just checked under attachments, and it shows PDF Document- use evince ( default). when I call evince from the command-line, it opens a window, and the terminal shows this: evince
** (evince:19829): WARNING **: Couldn't register with accessibility bus: Did not receive a reply. Possible causes include: the remote application did not send a reply, the message bus security policy blocked the reply, the reply timeout expired, or the network connection was broken.
Allegedly, on or about 16 December 2014, Paul Cartwright sent:
when I click on a PDF in a thunderbird email, it starts to open a window, then crashes. once I save the attachment to my HD, double-click opens it.. Fedora21..
As a test, you could try changing the default application to something like gnome-open, or xdg-open (which are a file handler utilities). Your emailer would palm off the file to the handler, and *it* would open it with the default system application for the type of file it is. That may help you isolate whether it's a Thunderbird problem, or something else.
That sort of thing can also help with malformed content, such as emails that don't say the attached file is a PDF file, but describe it as being some unknown type of binary file. The handler will inspect the file, for you.
On 16.12.2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
What are people doing for pdf reading native on Fedora other than evince
I've been using evince a lot during my mastergrade studies, and it worked for me. For "special cases" as e.g. pdf annotation I've been using Xournal.
I agree that okular is somewhat omnipotent, but installing it will blow my system with a lot of KDE-libs (I run awesome on my laptop and XFCE on my PC). Btw: tried okular in F19, and it was a lot slower than any other pdf reader.
-
Andras Simon -
Butrus Damaskus -
Chris Adams -
Chris Murphy -
Clemens Eisserer -
Doug -
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak -
Heinz Diehl -
Joe Wulf -
kevin martin -
Marko Vojinovic -
Mihamina Rakotomandimby -
Neal Becker -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Paul Allen Newell -
Paul Cartwright -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ranjan Maitra -
Robert Moskowitz -
Robin Laing -
Roger Wells -
Sudhir Khanger -
Tim