Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #317247 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-28 01:13 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-31 10:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-27 16:21 -0700
Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 10:06 +0200
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 13:39 +0200
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 15:33 +0200
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-28 09:50 -0400
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 16:12 +0200
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 08:01 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-08-31 06:02 +0000
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-31 08:58 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 00:15 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 00:29 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-31 09:35 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 01:19 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 00:33 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-31 10:04 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 01:20 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-31 12:15 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 09:24 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 11:47 -0500
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-08-31 07:57 +0000
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-31 10:08 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 01:23 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-08-31 08:27 +0000
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 01:32 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-08-31 20:11 +0000
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 13:27 -0700
Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 01:15 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 11:44 -0500
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 08:24 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 02:13 +0000
Re: Michael Glasser lying again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 19:41 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 02:48 +0000
Re: Michael Glasser lying again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 21:09 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 05:47 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 23:17 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 09:33 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 11:44 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 19:17 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 13:02 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 13:31 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 21:57 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 23:09 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 16:11 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-29 23:37 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-30 01:53 +0200
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 17:04 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-30 02:05 +0200
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-30 02:06 +0200
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 05:04 -0500
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 17:00 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-30 00:18 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-08-30 00:39 +0000
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 21:46 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-30 04:29 -0500
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 13:43 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-31 20:38 -0500
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 18:52 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-01 07:22 -0500
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-01 10:46 -0700
Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-01 12:06 -0600
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-28 12:34 -0600
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-28 20:43 +0200
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 13:17 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-28 15:04 -0600
Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-28 13:17 -0700
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 10:48 -0500
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 11:40 -0700
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 14:01 -0500
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-29 12:54 -0700
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 19:56 -0500
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-31 09:07 -0500
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 12:35 -0700
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-31 09:04 -0500
Re: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-31 10:33 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 07:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-28940973d0c38700748e80e567456ac3@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #317986 |
In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > Sandman: > > I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any > > application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So > > if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. > > The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to > PostScript in its print dialog Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create PDF versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 10:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <ms11v9$lfh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #317995 |
Sandman wrote: > In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: > >> > Sandman: >> > I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >> > application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So >> > if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. >> >> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to >> PostScript in its print dialog > > Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create PDF > versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. > Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, had the incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF services" are a tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more "efficiency and error- reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much better PDF services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his usual routine of inventing lunatic work-flows which are only "streamlined" when done exactly his way. Which is, to say the least, a "work flow" of an utterly imbecile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 01:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <D2095D07.59656%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317997 |
On 8/31/15, 1:08 AM, in article ms11v9$lfh$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Sandman wrote: > >> In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >> >>>> Sandman: >>>> I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >>>> application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So >>>> if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. >>> >>> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to >>> PostScript in its print dialog >> >> Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create PDF >> versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. >> > Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, had the > incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF services" are a > tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more "efficiency and error- > reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" For certain use cases, such as, say, printing receipts or recipes from web pages. Sure. > When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much better PDF > services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his usual routine of > inventing lunatic work-flows which are only "streamlined" when done exactly > his way. Which is, to say the least, a "work flow" of an utterly imbecile That is your way of saying you changed the topic to a Linux tool that allows you to convert other files to PDF... which I noted was a pretty cool feature, too, but did not serve the use case being discussed well. A BETTER way to serve the use case on Linux is to save to PDF and simply select the folder you want. Or, in the case of sending it to a program, save it as PDF and include as an attachment, open, or whatever. A few extra clicks... sure. Not a big deal. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 08:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-4c911728f1942d33df3d8bd5e944831d@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #317997 |
In article <ms11v9$lfh$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > > > Sandman: > > > > I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is > > > > available for any application and any file format that has a > > > > way to print a file. So if it can be printed, it can be saved > > > > as a PDF. > > > > > > Peter Köhlmann: > > > The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and > > > Print to PostScript in its print dialog > > > > Sandman: > > Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can > > create PDF versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. > > Great. > > Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, > had the incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF > services" are a tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more > "efficiency and error- reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" > When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much > better PDF services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his > usual routine of inventing lunatic work-flows which are only > "streamlined" when done exactly his way. Which is, to say the > least, a "work flow" of an utterly imbecile Well, workflows rocks! I recently built a workflow that handles reciepts for my company. So whenever I'm on a web page that has transaction information, or any other source for a transaction (mail reciepts, or whatever) I have a "Add reciept" workflow in services that polls my server for unfiled costs, presents a list of them in a popup where I can choose one that correlates to the one I'm looking at, which in turn sends a request to my server to update it to "sent" and then creates an email with the reciept added as a PDF and the recipient my book keeper. It's really handy! Just to say that many work-flows are only streamlined for one specific use case. :) -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 01:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <D2095F2E.5965C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318002 |
On 8/31/15, 1:27 AM, in article sandman-4c911728f1942d33df3d8bd5e944831d@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <ms11v9$lfh$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>>>> Sandman: >>>>> I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is >>>>> available for any application and any file format that has a >>>>> way to print a file. So if it can be printed, it can be saved >>>>> as a PDF. >>>> >>>> Peter K�hlmann: >>>> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and >>>> Print to PostScript in its print dialog >>> >>> Sandman: >>> Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can >>> create PDF versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. >>> Great. >> >> Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, had the >> incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF services" are a >> tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more "efficiency and error- >> reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" >> >> When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much better PDF >> services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his usual routine of >> inventing lunatic work-flows which are only "streamlined" when done exactly >> his way. Which is, to say the least, a "work flow" of an utterly imbecile >> > Well, workflows rocks! I recently built a workflow that handles reciepts for > my company. So whenever I'm on a web page that has transaction information, or > any other source for a transaction (mail reciepts, or whatever) I have a "Add > reciept" workflow in services that polls my server for unfiled costs, presents > a list of them in a popup where I can choose one that correlates to the one > I'm looking at, which in turn sends a request to my server to update it to > "sent" and then creates an email with the reciept added as a PDF and the > recipient my book keeper. It's really handy! > > Just to say that many work-flows are only streamlined for one specific use > case. :) Right. These types of these are cool and helpful. Is your workflow tied to PDF Services where it is getting the input from the PDF Services or tied to a text service... or something else? What Peter describes helps with some use cases.... and what OS X offers works with others. The difference is I do not deny it, I show it and describe it... where Peter makes empty claims and never shows any evidence. Still, after he made his irrelevant claim about the Linux conversion tool I was able to find the evidence for it he was unable to show... seems cool. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 20:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <55e4b4d9$0$25038$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #317997 |
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:08:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Sandman wrote: > >> In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >> >>> > Sandman: >>> > I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >>> > application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So >>> > if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. >>> >>> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to >>> PostScript in its print dialog >> >> Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create >> PDF versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. >> > Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, had > the incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF services" > are a tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more "efficiency and > error- reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" > > When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much better > PDF services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his usual routine > of inventing lunatic work-flows which are only "streamlined" when done > exactly his way. Which is, to say the least, a "work flow" of an utterly > imbecile I'm still trying to figure out why y'all are letting him get away with his vendor-specific jargon. Specifically, "PDF Services". Observe: "Linux doesn't have OSX 'PDF Services', and is therefore inferior!" Then there's also the claim that Linux doesn't have a system print dialog, which is just nonsense -- not only does it have one, but it will print to a PDF file, too. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <D20A06B9.5975D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318153 |
On 8/31/15, 1:11 PM, in article 55e4b4d9$0$25038$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:08:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Sandman wrote: >> >>> In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >>> >>>>> Sandman: >>>>> I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >>>>> application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So >>>>> if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. >>>> >>>> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to >>>> PostScript in its print dialog >>> >>> Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create >>> PDF versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. >>> >> Well, a certain lunatic glue sniffer, namely Snit Michael Glasser, had >> the incurable need to troll COLA with his idiocy how "OSX PDF services" >> are a tool only OSX has, and how this leads to more "efficiency and >> error- reduction" while "streamlining the work-flow" >> >> When he was po9inted to that he is full of it and KDE has much better >> PDF services, he got into a posting frenzy and started his usual routine >> of inventing lunatic work-flows which are only "streamlined" when done >> exactly his way. Which is, to say the least, a "work flow" of an utterly >> imbecile > > I'm still trying to figure out why y'all are letting him get away with > his vendor-specific jargon. > > Specifically, "PDF Services". Oh, if you can show Linux doing the same thing with a different term I do not care. I care more about work flows and the like. Here: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>. Would love to see how you would do the same with the same recipe... if I am wrong about Linux having a less streamlined workflow then show it. I learn and you advocate Linux. Win-win. > Observe: > > "Linux doesn't have OSX 'PDF Services', and is therefore inferior!" OK, you can make up quotes. So? > Then there's also the claim that Linux doesn't have a system print > dialog, which is just nonsense -- Well, the OS X environment is a lot more consistent with what print dialog it uses, but of course GNOME and KDE have such dialogs. What are you even arguing against here? > not only does it have one, but it will print to a PDF file, too. Again, what are you arguing against here? Just weird. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 01:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Peter Köhlmann lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <D2095B20.5964B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317995 |
On 8/31/15, 12:57 AM, in article sandman-28940973d0c38700748e80e567456ac3@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <ms0tr5$a5o$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: > >>> Sandman: >>> I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >>> application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So >>> if it can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. >> >> The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to >> PostScript in its print dialog > > Neat, then I don't understand what the fuzz is about. users can create PDF > versions of most files on both OSX and Linux then. Great. Comes down to they both can do it fine. OS X handles it somewhat better when you are wanting to, say, save an online recipe or receipt into a preset folder; Linux handles it somewhat better if you want to batch-convert a bunch of pre-existing files to PDF. Not complex to understand. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <slrnmugu77.dnh.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #317986 |
On 2015-08-31, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Sandman wrote: > >> In article <mrpnsq$i5p$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> > > > > Peter K�hlmann: >>> > > > > Peter K�hlmann: In every way. Linux has the ability to >>> > > > > create PDFs directly from the file browser without going >>> > > > > through some "PDF services" the OSX way since years And the >>> > > > > original file type may vary more, you can even generate PDFs >>> > > > > with videos inside (and not just the link to that video) >>> > > > >>> > > > Sandman: >>> > > > What file formats does it support? >>> > > >>> > > Peter K�hlmann: >>> > > I have tried all MPeg video formats, also H264 and VP8 >>> > >>> > Sandman: >>> > Ok, not sure why you'd want a PDF from a video - >>> >>> I am not either, but it works >> >>> > Sandman: >>> > but I meant more in terms of what document formats does it >>> > support? >>> >>> MSOffice and OpenOffice are supported. Plain Text as well >> >> Oh, ok, so pretty slim support then. >> >>> > > Peter K�hlmann: >>> > > Basically all where it makes sense. You can even put logs to >>> > > PDF, although that is not really useful. You can't generate >>> > > PDFs from Zip-files, for example. Or other packer formats. >>> > >>> > Sandman: >>> > Where is the list of file formats supported? >>> >>> I don't have looked for any. I just right-click on a file. If it is >>> supported the option is present. >> >> I'm just asking since PDF conversion in OSX is available for any >> application and any file format that has a way to print a file. So if it >> can be printed, it can be saved as a PDF. It's Unix you dimwit. If it can be printed then it probably ends up as postscript as some point at which conversion to PDF is trivial. You idiots brag about MacOS being Unix and have absolutely no idea what that means as an actual Unix user. >> > > The same is true for linux, which also has print to PDF and Print to > PostScript in its print dialog > Linux has also the added capability to directly create PDFs from many file > formats by right clicking in the file browser on such a file and select > "create PDF", which also can have several destinations for that PDF. > Those files can also be files created by applications which don't have any > print capabilities
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 08:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again (Was: OS X: Print to PDF from the Finder) |
| Message-ID | <D205CB28.58FB7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317289 |
On 8/28/15, 4:39 AM, in article mrph5q$re2$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <mrp4mb$i84$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>
>>> In every way. Linux has the ability to create PDFs directly from the
>>> file browser without going through some "PDF services" the OSX way
>>> since years And the original file type may vary more, you can even
>>> generate PDFs with videos inside (and not just the link to that
>>> video)
>>
>> What file formats does it support?
>
> I have tried all MPeg video formats, also H264 and VP8
>
> Basically all where it makes sense. You can even put logs to PDF, although
> that is not really useful.
> You can't generate PDFs from Zip-files, for example. Or other packer
> formats.
Why not show it? Wait... when asked to VIEW a YouTube video you claimed it
was, to you, unreadable:
Peter, about Snit's video: https://youtu.be/JFQOgBkCkSM
-----
Did you make the video unreadable for some reason? ... So you
naturally had to obscure the video ... You showed a video which is
unreadable ... I knew that you would come up with a trick like
this. So now you lied by not making readable what you really
clicked on
-----
Given how you cannot even VIEW a YouTube video there is no chance you could
show what you are claiming you can do.
Also keep in mind such tools do not do the same as OS X's PDF Services,
which you claimed they did based on your ignorance. What Owl showed handles
NONE of the use cases listed:
1) You have a document open. You want that open documented sent to someone
as a PDF.
2) You have a document open. You want that open document sent with a name
you select (as a PDF).
3) You are viewing a web page: you want that page saved, as a PDF, to a
Recipes folder, a Web Receipts folder, or some other common destination.
With that said, being able to convert to PDF from the desktop is cool and he
has been able to do it better than I. Here is my best efforts so far:
<https://youtu.be/QkCcg0TeDp4>. If I had better command line skills or took
more time to fix it then it would be better. :)
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 02:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <sfnmvnc83.sdjfi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317308 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/28/15, 4:39 AM, in article mrph5q$re2$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" > <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Sandman wrote: >> >>> In article <mrp4mb$i84$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >>> >>>> In every way. Linux has the ability to create PDFs directly from the >>>> file browser without going through some "PDF services" the OSX way >>>> since years And the original file type may vary more, you can even >>>> generate PDFs with videos inside (and not just the link to that >>>> video) >>> >>> What file formats does it support? >> >> I have tried all MPeg video formats, also H264 and VP8 >> >> Basically all where it makes sense. You can even put logs to PDF, although >> that is not really useful. >> You can't generate PDFs from Zip-files, for example. Or other packer >> formats. > Why not show it? Wait... when asked to VIEW a YouTube video you claimed it > was, to you, unreadable: > Peter, about Snit's video: https://youtu.be/JFQOgBkCkSM > ----- > Did you make the video unreadable for some reason? ... So you > naturally had to obscure the video ... You showed a video which is > unreadable ... I knew that you would come up with a trick like > this. So now you lied by not making readable what you really > clicked on > ----- > Given how you cannot even VIEW a YouTube video there is no chance you could > show what you are claiming you can do. > Also keep in mind such tools do not do the same as OS X's PDF Services, > which you claimed they did based on your ignorance. What Owl showed handles > NONE of the use cases listed: > 1) You have a document open. You want that open documented sent to someone > as a PDF. > 2) You have a document open. You want that open document sent with a name > you select (as a PDF). > 3) You are viewing a web page: you want that page saved, as a PDF, to a > Recipes folder, a Web Receipts folder, or some other common destination. > With that said, being able to convert to PDF from the desktop is cool and he > has been able to do it better than I. Here is my best efforts so far: > <https://youtu.be/QkCcg0TeDp4>. If I had better command line skills or took > more time to fix it then it would be better. :) https://vid.me/H9m0 Just as with OS X, it's up to the developer which "PDF Services" he or she wants to expose to the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 19:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <D20669CC.5916F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317402 |
On 8/28/15, 7:13 PM, in article sfnmvnc83.sdjfi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/28/15, 4:39 AM, in article mrph5q$re2$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" >> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >>> Sandman wrote: >>> >>>> In article <mrp4mb$i84$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> In every way. Linux has the ability to create PDFs directly from the >>>>> file browser without going through some "PDF services" the OSX way >>>>> since years And the original file type may vary more, you can even >>>>> generate PDFs with videos inside (and not just the link to that >>>>> video) >>>> >>>> What file formats does it support? >>> >>> I have tried all MPeg video formats, also H264 and VP8 >>> >>> Basically all where it makes sense. You can even put logs to PDF, although >>> that is not really useful. >>> You can't generate PDFs from Zip-files, for example. Or other packer >>> formats. > >> Why not show it? Wait... when asked to VIEW a YouTube video you claimed it >> was, to you, unreadable: > > >> Peter, about Snit's video: https://youtu.be/JFQOgBkCkSM >> ----- >> Did you make the video unreadable for some reason? ... So you >> naturally had to obscure the video ... You showed a video which is >> unreadable ... I knew that you would come up with a trick like >> this. So now you lied by not making readable what you really >> clicked on >> ----- > >> Given how you cannot even VIEW a YouTube video there is no chance you could >> show what you are claiming you can do. > >> Also keep in mind such tools do not do the same as OS X's PDF Services, >> which you claimed they did based on your ignorance. What Owl showed handles >> NONE of the use cases listed: > >> 1) You have a document open. You want that open documented sent to someone >> as a PDF. > >> 2) You have a document open. You want that open document sent with a name >> you select (as a PDF). > >> 3) You are viewing a web page: you want that page saved, as a PDF, to a >> Recipes folder, a Web Receipts folder, or some other common destination. > >> With that said, being able to convert to PDF from the desktop is cool and he >> has been able to do it better than I. Here is my best efforts so far: >> <https://youtu.be/QkCcg0TeDp4>. If I had better command line skills or took >> more time to fix it then it would be better. :) > > https://vid.me/H9m0 > Just as with OS X, it's up to the developer which "PDF Services" > he or she wants to expose to the user. First: thanks for zooming in so folks such as Peter who have trouble viewing videos online can read it to. I had no such problem even without the zoom. :) What you did here was write a program that gave you these options. In OS X darn near ANY program has these options... with the exception of the few, poorly written / ported programs such as the ones I found which did not handle files well (precisely two programs have been found so far). But I can use PDF Services from any browser I know of (just tested even Firefox which tends to be fairly lousy) and Opera (though you do need to select the system print dialog - you have a choice). Oh, and Tor browser. :) It works in Adobe programs and MS programs and the programs of small developers. It is not a separate program that I can run, it is integrated throughout the system. That is a very different thing. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 02:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317409 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/28/15, 7:13 PM, in article sfnmvnc83.sdjfi@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/28/15, 4:39 AM, in article mrph5q$re2$2@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" >>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>> Sandman wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <mrp4mb$i84$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In every way. Linux has the ability to create PDFs directly from the >>>>>> file browser without going through some "PDF services" the OSX way >>>>>> since years And the original file type may vary more, you can even >>>>>> generate PDFs with videos inside (and not just the link to that >>>>>> video) >>>>> >>>>> What file formats does it support? >>>> >>>> I have tried all MPeg video formats, also H264 and VP8 >>>> >>>> Basically all where it makes sense. You can even put logs to PDF, although >>>> that is not really useful. >>>> You can't generate PDFs from Zip-files, for example. Or other packer >>>> formats. >> >>> Why not show it? Wait... when asked to VIEW a YouTube video you claimed it >>> was, to you, unreadable: >> >> >>> Peter, about Snit's video: https://youtu.be/JFQOgBkCkSM >>> ----- >>> Did you make the video unreadable for some reason? ... So you >>> naturally had to obscure the video ... You showed a video which is >>> unreadable ... I knew that you would come up with a trick like >>> this. So now you lied by not making readable what you really >>> clicked on >>> ----- >> >>> Given how you cannot even VIEW a YouTube video there is no chance you could >>> show what you are claiming you can do. >> >>> Also keep in mind such tools do not do the same as OS X's PDF Services, >>> which you claimed they did based on your ignorance. What Owl showed handles >>> NONE of the use cases listed: >> >>> 1) You have a document open. You want that open documented sent to someone >>> as a PDF. >> >>> 2) You have a document open. You want that open document sent with a name >>> you select (as a PDF). >> >>> 3) You are viewing a web page: you want that page saved, as a PDF, to a >>> Recipes folder, a Web Receipts folder, or some other common destination. >> >>> With that said, being able to convert to PDF from the desktop is cool and he >>> has been able to do it better than I. Here is my best efforts so far: >>> <https://youtu.be/QkCcg0TeDp4>. If I had better command line skills or took >>> more time to fix it then it would be better. :) >> >> https://vid.me/H9m0 >> Just as with OS X, it's up to the developer which "PDF Services" >> he or she wants to expose to the user. > First: thanks for zooming in so folks such as Peter who have trouble viewing > videos online can read it to. I had no such problem even without the zoom. > :) > What you did here was write a program that gave you these options. In OS X > darn near ANY program has these options... with the exception of the few, > poorly written / ported programs such as the ones I found which did not > handle files well (precisely two programs have been found so far). In other words, the ones whose developers did not add that menu option. > But I can use PDF Services from any browser I know of (just tested even > Firefox which tends to be fairly lousy) and Opera (though you do need to > select the system print dialog - you have a choice). Oh, and Tor browser. :) > It works in Adobe programs and MS programs and the programs of small > developers. It is not a separate program that I can run, it is integrated > throughout the system. > That is a very different thing. If it's in the application's menu, then the developer coded it in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 21:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <D2067E87.5918C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317412 |
On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
...
>>> https://vid.me/H9m0
>>> Just as with OS X, it's up to the developer which "PDF Services"
>>> he or she wants to expose to the user.
>
>> First: thanks for zooming in so folks such as Peter who have trouble viewing
>> videos online can read it to. I had no such problem even without the zoom.
>> :)
>
>> What you did here was write a program that gave you these options. In OS X
>> darn near ANY program has these options... with the exception of the few,
>> poorly written / ported programs such as the ones I found which did not
>> handle files well (precisely two programs have been found so far).
>
> In other words, the ones whose developers did not add that menu option.
Nope. Those developers did not include the standard print dialog provided by
the system. They instead ported a program over poorly. It is so poor, in
fact, that others have taken the GIMP engine and made a program with a
decent OS X UI: <http://sourceforge.net/projects/seashore/>.
There is also a "GIMP on OS X" project which aims to make GIMP be a decent
OS X program: <http://gimp.lisanet.de/>
It is based on X11 and *still* has the OS X print dialog.
>> But I can use PDF Services from any browser I know of (just tested even
>> Firefox which tends to be fairly lousy) and Opera (though you do need to
>> select the system print dialog - you have a choice). Oh, and Tor browser. :)
>
>> It works in Adobe programs and MS programs and the programs of small
>> developers. It is not a separate program that I can run, it is integrated
>> throughout the system.
>
>> That is a very different thing.
>
> If it's in the application's menu, then the developer coded it in.
Sure, the developer opted to use the standard print dialog... which is
provided by Apple for Cocoa programs.
<https://goo.gl/dDqfcp> [developer.apple.com]
-----
Most Cocoa apps provide printing support in one form or another. When
you create a Cocoa app, the Print command is automatically provided in
the File menu. It¹s straightforward for apps to implement printing.
...
But for those users who require more control over the printing process
and the printers they use, OS X provides it.
-----
This is the standard way apps print on OS X.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 21:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <D2068048.59190%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317425 |
On 8/28/15, 9:09 PM, in article D2067E87.5918C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... > >>>> https://vid.me/H9m0 >>>> Just as with OS X, it's up to the developer which "PDF Services" >>>> he or she wants to expose to the user. >> >>> First: thanks for zooming in so folks such as Peter who have trouble viewing >>> videos online can read it to. I had no such problem even without the zoom. >>> :) >> >>> What you did here was write a program that gave you these options. In OS X >>> darn near ANY program has these options... with the exception of the few, >>> poorly written / ported programs such as the ones I found which did not >>> handle files well (precisely two programs have been found so far). >> >> In other words, the ones whose developers did not add that menu option. > > Nope. Those developers did not include the standard print dialog provided by > the system. They instead ported a program over poorly. It is so poor, in > fact, that others have taken the GIMP engine and made a program with a > decent OS X UI: <http://sourceforge.net/projects/seashore/>. > > There is also a "GIMP on OS X" project which aims to make GIMP be a decent > OS X program: <http://gimp.lisanet.de/> > > It is based on X11 and *still* has the OS X print dialog. Um, this should be it is based on X11 so might not have the OS X dialog... downloading to test. Sorry for that... my goof. I have not tested it one way or the other. >>> But I can use PDF Services from any browser I know of (just tested even >>> Firefox which tends to be fairly lousy) and Opera (though you do need to >>> select the system print dialog - you have a choice). Oh, and Tor browser. :) >> >>> It works in Adobe programs and MS programs and the programs of small >>> developers. It is not a separate program that I can run, it is integrated >>> throughout the system. >> >>> That is a very different thing. >> >> If it's in the application's menu, then the developer coded it in. > > Sure, the developer opted to use the standard print dialog... which is > provided by Apple for Cocoa programs. > > <https://goo.gl/dDqfcp> [developer.apple.com] > ----- > Most Cocoa apps provide printing support in one form or another. When > you create a Cocoa app, the Print command is automatically provided in > the File menu. It¹s straightforward for apps to implement printing. > ... > But for those users who require more control over the printing process > and the printers they use, OS X provides it. > ----- > > This is the standard way apps print on OS X. > -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 05:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser lying again |
| Message-ID | <fanmcj0.aw3fp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317425 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... > But for those users who require more control over the printing process > and the printers they use, OS X provides it. > ----- > This is the standard way apps print on OS X. Why are you moving the goalposts from available PDF services to print dialogs? Any application on linux can do *all* of the things you mentioned earlier even without the capability to print, which make sense given that none of those things are even logically related to printing. Who would think to go to a print dialog to send email? Who would even *want* to? That's just crazy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 23:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie |
| Message-ID | <D2069CA7.5919F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317427 |
On 8/28/15, 10:47 PM, in article fanmcj0.aw3fp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... > >> But for those users who require more control over the printing process >> and the printers they use, OS X provides it. >> ----- > >> This is the standard way apps print on OS X. > > Why are you moving the goalposts from available PDF services to print > dialogs? PDF Services are in the print dialogs! Does not mean you cannot work with PDFs elsewhere: heck, in many OS X programs you can. Here: <http://youtu.be/yufGdadRcdE> Those are two other programs... each has the "Share" menu, which is ALSO tied to OS X Services, but it is not the "PDF Services" feature. And each has OTHER features tied to PDFs which are not tied to either the PDF Services in the print dialog NOR the OS X Share feature. Nobody is saying programmers should not or could not add other features to their programs. > Any application on linux can do *all* of the things you mentioned earlier even > without the capability to print, which make sense given that none of those > things are even logically related to printing. Why not show a few programs doing this - say a couple of common web browsers, a couple common word processors, a couple common image editors, and a couple common email clients. This would be TRIVIAL to do on OS X. It is not a theoretical possibility that it COULD be done, it is that it is IS done. It is provided by the system itself and programs tap into PDF Services by simply using the almost-universally used Print dialog. > Who would think to go to a print dialog to send email? Who would think to go to a Print dialog to save a PDF? Yeah, it is a bit weird... but once you know it is there it is a great feature. They could rename "Print" to be "PDF Services" or "Convert to PDF and Handle", because that is really what is happening, but I think that would confuse more people. > Who would even *want* to? That's just crazy. Why would you go to the Print dialog to save as PDF or postscript. It is because it makes technical sense... and nobody has come up with a more clear way to label the "Print" menu item. Maybe "Print and More"? "Print Plus"? "Print +"? Not sure that would help reduce confusion... but, sure, it is a bit of a bit of a conundrum for the UI designers. It is also completely off topic. :) -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 09:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie |
| Message-ID | <fandms83.kjfd@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317430 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/28/15, 10:47 PM, in article fanmcj0.aw3fp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> ... >> >>> But for those users who require more control over the printing process >>> and the printers they use, OS X provides it. >>> ----- >> >>> This is the standard way apps print on OS X. >> >> Why are you moving the goalposts from available PDF services to print >> dialogs? > PDF Services are in the print dialogs! Does not mean you cannot work with > PDFs elsewhere: heck, in many OS X programs you can. Here: > <http://youtu.be/yufGdadRcdE> > Those are two other programs... each has the "Share" menu, which is ALSO > tied to OS X Services, but it is not the "PDF Services" feature. And each > has OTHER features tied to PDFs which are not tied to either the PDF > Services in the print dialog NOR the OS X Share feature. > Nobody is saying programmers should not or could not add other features to > their programs. >> Any application on linux can do *all* of the things you mentioned earlier even >> without the capability to print, which make sense given that none of those >> things are even logically related to printing. > Why not show a few programs doing this - say a couple of common web > browsers, a couple common word processors, a couple common image editors, > and a couple common email clients. > This would be TRIVIAL to do on OS X. It is not a theoretical possibility > that it COULD be done, it is that it is IS done. It is provided by the > system itself and programs tap into PDF Services by simply using the > almost-universally used Print dialog. >> Who would think to go to a print dialog to send email? > Who would think to go to a Print dialog to save a PDF? Yeah, it is a bit > weird... but once you know it is there it is a great feature. They could > rename "Print" to be "PDF Services" or "Convert to PDF and Handle", because > that is really what is happening, but I think that would confuse more > people. >> Who would even *want* to? That's just crazy. > Why would you go to the Print dialog to save as PDF or postscript. It is > because it makes technical sense... and nobody has come up with a more clear > way to label the "Print" menu item. Maybe "Print and More"? "Print Plus"? > "Print +"? > Not sure that would help reduce confusion... but, sure, it is a bit of a bit > of a conundrum for the UI designers. It is also completely off topic. :) I think anything you do often enough to have a quick link in the print dialog deserves a better workflow: https://vid.me/2SuL BTW, is El Capitan going to boot to the print dialog so OS X can be more efficient?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 11:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie |
| Message-ID | <D2074BB2.59218%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #317439 |
On 8/29/15, 2:33 AM, in article fandms83.kjfd@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/28/15, 10:47 PM, in article fanmcj0.aw3fp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/28/15, 7:48 PM, in article fanmcjv83.djf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>> But for those users who require more control over the printing process >>>> and the printers they use, OS X provides it. >>>> ----- >>> >>>> This is the standard way apps print on OS X. >>> >>> Why are you moving the goalposts from available PDF services to print >>> dialogs? > >> PDF Services are in the print dialogs! Does not mean you cannot work with >> PDFs elsewhere: heck, in many OS X programs you can. Here: > >> <http://youtu.be/yufGdadRcdE> > >> Those are two other programs... each has the "Share" menu, which is ALSO >> tied to OS X Services, but it is not the "PDF Services" feature. And each >> has OTHER features tied to PDFs which are not tied to either the PDF >> Services in the print dialog NOR the OS X Share feature. > >> Nobody is saying programmers should not or could not add other features to >> their programs. Did you understand the difference? No comment from you... >>> Any application on linux can do *all* of the things you mentioned earlier >>> even without the capability to print, which make sense given that none of >>> those things are even logically related to printing. > >> Why not show a few programs doing this - say a couple of common web >> browsers, a couple common word processors, a couple common image editors, >> and a couple common email clients. > >> This would be TRIVIAL to do on OS X. It is not a theoretical possibility >> that it COULD be done, it is that it is IS done. It is provided by the >> system itself and programs tap into PDF Services by simply using the >> almost-universally used Print dialog. Again: no comment from you. >>> Who would think to go to a print dialog to send email? > >> Who would think to go to a Print dialog to save a PDF? Yeah, it is a bit >> weird... but once you know it is there it is a great feature. They could >> rename "Print" to be "PDF Services" or "Convert to PDF and Handle", because >> that is really what is happening, but I think that would confuse more >> people. > >>> Who would even *want* to? That's just crazy. > >> Why would you go to the Print dialog to save as PDF or postscript. It is >> because it makes technical sense... and nobody has come up with a more clear >> way to label the "Print" menu item. Maybe "Print and More"? "Print Plus"? >> "Print +"? > >> Not sure that would help reduce confusion... but, sure, it is a bit of a bit >> of a conundrum for the UI designers. It is also completely off topic. :) > > I think anything you do often enough to have a quick link in the > print dialog deserves a better workflow: > > https://vid.me/2SuL Well, that is surely not a better work flow. Wow. You need to go to the file manager to work with the file in the browser...??? What if it is full screen? Sure, I guess you could have another item on your panel... but then you are combining all sorts of scripts from your panel to do everything. No context at all. And would that work from any program? And how many menu items would you need just to show what I do... seems like you put all yours in one of two places and they are always there, whether they fit the context or not. > BTW, is El Capitan going to boot to the print dialog so OS X can be > more efficient? Er? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 19:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Owl and Peter deem knowledge to be a lie |
| Message-ID | <fadnmv93.aer2e@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317491 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/29/15, 2:33 AM, in article fandms83.kjfd@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> I think anything you do often enough to have a quick link in the >> print dialog deserves a better workflow: >> >> https://vid.me/2SuL > Well, that is surely not a better work flow. Wow. Yeah... click click boom is not a better work flow. <rolls eyes> > You need to go to the file > manager to work with the file in the browser...??? The desktop is always there. If you want to call right-clicking the desktop "going to the file manager," so be it. > What if it is full > screen? Then I just assign a hotkey. > Sure, I guess you could have another item on your panel... No need for that. > but then > you are combining all sorts of scripts from your panel to do everything. No > context at all. The context is, "I need the most efficient method of performing this task that I do hundreds of times a day -- saving recipes from the web to my recipe folder in PDF format."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web