Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235562 > unrolled thread

Question re postscript and pdf

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-10 19:57 +0200
    Re: Question re postscript and pdf usenet@spuddy.org (Stephen Harris) - 2026-09-11 08:09 -0400
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 14:44 +0200
    Re: Question re postscript and pdf magardner2010 <magardner2010@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:24 +0300
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 14:42 +0200
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-12 02:21 +0000
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-09-12 07:32 +0000
          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:07 +0100
            Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:20 +0200
              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 12:52 +0100
          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:16 +0000
            Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:42 +0200
              Re: Question re postscript and pdf James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:03 +0000
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 07:33 -0700
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 14:50 +0000
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:09 +0200
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 16:22 +0000
                  Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-15 10:41 +0100
                    Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-15 07:41 -0700
                      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 00:23 +0100
                      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
                        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-15 20:07 -0700
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-16 04:17 +0000
                            Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 11:41 +0100
                              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-16 08:02 -0700
                            Re: Question re postscript and pdf Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 14:41 -0700
                              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-17 01:56 +0000
                                Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-17 10:27 +0100
                        About OO vs LO "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 09:19 +0200
                          Re: About OO vs LO Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:48 +0000
                            Re: About OO vs LO "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 11:57 +0200
                        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-16 07:55 -0700
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-16 16:22 +0000
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-17 01:57 +0000
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-18 17:35 -0400
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:59 +0100
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 16:08 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#235647

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Just say no. I only use OO.

OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??

<https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235649

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Just say no. I only use OO.
> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>
> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>

Supports more operating systems?
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235650

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>>
>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>
>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
> 
> Supports more operating systems?

Nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235654

On 2026-09-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>>>
>>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>>
>>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>> 
>> Supports more operating systems?
>
> Nonsense.

Given that one of the disadvantages of libreoffice at one point were the
increasing number of dependencies - I at one point did pick Apache OO exactly
because of this - it'd not be surprising if that limited the number of
supported systems.

We're seeing that with e.g. rust, where at least official builds limit
the target systems somewhat.


-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235656

On 9/16/26 03:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-09-16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>>>>
>>>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>>>
>>> Supports more operating systems?
>>
>> Nonsense.
> 
> Given that one of the disadvantages of libreoffice at one point were the
> increasing number of dependencies - I at one point did pick Apache OO exactly
> because of this - it'd not be surprising if that limited the number of
> supported systems.
> 
> We're seeing that with e.g. rust, where at least official builds limit
> the target systems somewhat.
> 

But of course that's a double-edged sword. I prefer software that runs 
on many systems. I run LO on Linux and (wife's) Windows systems, and 
whichever version of xxxOffice that supports iOS on my iPad. I loved 
being able to pick up a Raspberry Pi, with a totally different 
architecture, and be able to install and run my favorite software with 
no learning curve. Some day I may want to play with Risc-V, and I know I 
can run stuff there too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235658

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>>>
>>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>>
>>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>>
>> Supports more operating systems?
>
> Nonsense.
>

Yet, here I am on OS/2, well actually ArcaOS, and we have OpenOffice but 
libreoffice ripped out all the OS/2 support when they forked.
The support went back to StarOffice.
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235659

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:41:11 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Supports more operating systems?
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
> Yet, here I am on OS/2, well actually ArcaOS, and we have OpenOffice
> but libreoffice ripped out all the OS/2 support when they forked.
> The support went back to StarOffice.

It’s only “support” if you can actually get timely bug fixes and
updates for it.

So it’s actually a dead project. But given you are running it on a
dead OS, I guess that’s fitting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235661

On 2026-09-17, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:41:11 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 20:07:29 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Supports more operating systems?
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>> Yet, here I am on OS/2, well actually ArcaOS, and we have OpenOffice
>> but libreoffice ripped out all the OS/2 support when they forked.
>> The support went back to StarOffice.
>
> It’s only “support” if you can actually get timely bug fixes and
> updates for it.
>
> So it’s actually a dead project. But given you are running it on a
> dead OS, I guess that’s fitting.

Stop moving goalposts. A significant difference was identified. A
question is whether LibO really gained much by ripping out that support.

Indeed, having more activity in Apache OO would be nice. The right
answer here is: focus on contributing if you can. The wrong answer is
"your use case goes against the point I'm trying to make so it's
dismissed".

Did LibO at least retain the OOo interface or did it depart much from
that? I think there were some annoyances besides the big tree of
dependencies, but I may be misremembering, I'm not really someone who
*needs* this sort of software for day-to-day computing over several
months. Last time I needed such a thing, I fired StarOffice in one
Windows NT VM... (because it was already installed, that's why)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235651 — About OO vs LO

On 2026-09-16 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> Just say no. I only use OO.
> 
> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
> 
> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>

Given that table I don't see a reason for the existence of OO. Waste of 
good developers time. Unless they have to say some good reasons I don't 
know about.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235652 — Re: About OO vs LO

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:19:11 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On 2026-09-16 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>
>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>
>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>
> Given that table I don't see a reason for the existence of OO. Waste
> of good developers time. Unless they have to say some good reasons I
> don't know about.

There is one surprising (and disappointing) reason: familiarity.

For some reason, lots of Windows users still remember OpenOffice from
the early days, while the word about LibreOffice has yet to reach
them, even after all these years. So they continue going to the
OpenOffice site in significant numbers, and continue to be
disappointed by the poor quality of what’s available there.

The suggestion has been made that the OpenOffice project should just
shut down already, and turn their domain into nothing more than a
redirect to the LibreOffice site. That would solve a lot of problems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235653 — Re: About OO vs LO

On 2026-09-16 09:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:19:11 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-09-16 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>>>
>>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>>>
>>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>>
>> Given that table I don't see a reason for the existence of OO. Waste
>> of good developers time. Unless they have to say some good reasons I
>> don't know about.
> 
> There is one surprising (and disappointing) reason: familiarity.
> 
> For some reason, lots of Windows users still remember OpenOffice from
> the early days, while the word about LibreOffice has yet to reach
> them, even after all these years. So they continue going to the
> OpenOffice site in significant numbers, and continue to be
> disappointed by the poor quality of what’s available there.

That's very disappointing indeed :-(

Yes, I did like the OpenOffice name, I did not like the forking or 
division or whatever it was. I wanted to continue with OOo. But I 
decided pretty fast that it would have to be LO. Actually, the distro 
decided and I accepted it. Continue life.

> 
> The suggestion has been made that the OpenOffice project should just
> shut down already, and turn their domain into nothing more than a
> redirect to the LibreOffice site. That would solve a lot of problems.

Yes.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235655

On 9/15/26 16:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> Just say no. I only use OO.
> 
> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
> 
> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>

Well, okay, Libre Office, but I've been using it since it was Star 
Office (originally a Sun product, I believe),  and I can't keep up with 
all the name changes. I'm not sure if the ability to endlessly fork open 
source projects is a blessing or a curse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235657

On 2026-09-16, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

> On 9/15/26 16:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>> 
>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>> 
>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>
> Well, okay, Libre Office, but I've been using it since it was Star 
> Office (originally a Sun product, I believe),  and I can't keep up with 
> all the name changes. I'm not sure if the ability to endlessly fork open 
> source projects is a blessing or a curse.

It can be a blessing, but only if someone is willing to merge
some of the forks back together from time to time.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235660

On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:55:19 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> I'm not sure if the ability to endlessly fork open source projects
> is a blessing or a curse.

The thing with Open Source is, nobody is going to drop things in your
lap -- you have to go forth and find out for yourself what’s there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235669

Peter Flass wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> On 9/15/26 16:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 07:41:17 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> Just say no. I only use OO.
>> 
>> OpenOffice??!!?? Why??!!??
>> 
>> <https://www.libreoffice.org/libreoffice-vs-openoffice/>
>
> Well, okay, Libre Office, but I've been using it since it was Star 
> Office (originally a Sun product, I believe),  and I can't keep up with 
> all the name changes. I'm not sure if the ability to endlessly fork open 
> source projects is a blessing or a curse.

Better than the constant churn of commercial software, perhaps.

He said "mankind", "religiousity",  and "rational knowledge" in
the same sentence:

:-D

-- 
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it
seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the
fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving
after rational knowledge.  -- Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235589

On 2026-09-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:
>
>> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
>> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
>> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
>> fun stuff.
>
> Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
> custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
> intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
> PDF objects instead.
>
>> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
>> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
>> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
>> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
>> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.
>
> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
> definition and objects on the page rendition.

This probably means it's possible to generate a much smaller postscript
file for some documents, right?

(But PDF still allows some deduplication, even without loops, doesn't
it?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235627

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs.

Yes, almost.

> So
> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
> definition and objects on the page rendition.

No.  Given object may have multiple references so number of object
on the page may be way larger than number of object in the .pdf
file.  I would have to check details of the spec to see if
exponential expansion is possible, but relatively small .pdf
file could put high load on the printer.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web