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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #158998 > unrolled thread

print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 04:10 +0200
    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2015-10-13 04:20 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 06:00 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 14:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 14:30 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 19:40 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 04:40 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 20:40 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 21:10 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 21:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 22:00 +0200
                  Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-13 23:00 +0200
                    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:50 +0200
                      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-13 22:00 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 21:50 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:00 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:20 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:50 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2015-10-13 16:50 +0200
    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 04:30 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 06:20 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-10-13 06:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 07:50 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-13 09:40 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-10-13 11:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-14 04:00 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-13 09:30 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#159085

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:39:58 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 19:37:34 Brian wrote:
> >
> > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> 
> :-)  
> 
> > I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
> > on debian-user.
> 
> Yes, but it is usually soluble, and anyway, I thought that pdf was easier from 
> Windows.  It used to be.  But I haven't used Windows for a very long time, so 
> I may easily be wrong.

The only solution to PDFs with XFA forms I found when I last looked at
the situation was using Adobe Reader.

Otherwise, my experience with PDF (viewing and printing) on Debian has
been good. Not using Windows, I only recently discovered XFS, MS's
response to Adobe's PDF format. Another standard - but from a different
organisation. As I said, everyone can have one. But who benefits?

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

#159087

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 23:24:40 +0100, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:39:58 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 19:37:34 Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> > 
> > :-)  
> > 
> > > I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
> > > on debian-user.
> > 
> > Yes, but it is usually soluble, and anyway, I thought that pdf was easier from 
> > Windows.  It used to be.  But I haven't used Windows for a very long time, so 
> > I may easily be wrong.
> 
> The only solution to PDFs with XFA forms I found when I last looked at
> the situation was using Adobe Reader.
> 
> Otherwise, my experience with PDF (viewing and printing) on Debian has
> been good. Not using Windows, I only recently discovered XFS, MS's
							    ^
							    |
							   XPS

> response to Adobe's PDF format. Another standard - but from a different
> organisation. As I said, everyone can have one. But who benefits?
> 

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

#159089

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 23:29:43 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 23:24:40 Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:39:58 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 19:37:34 Brian wrote:
> > > > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > > > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> > > >
> > > :-)
> > > :
> > > > I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
> > > > on debian-user.
> > >
> > > Yes, but it is usually soluble, and anyway, I thought that pdf was easier
> > > from Windows.  It used to be.  But I haven't used Windows for a very long
> > > time, so I may easily be wrong.
> >
> > The only solution to PDFs with XFA forms I found when I last looked at
> > the situation was using Adobe Reader.
> >
> > Otherwise, my experience with PDF (viewing and printing) on Debian has
> > been good. Not using Windows, I only recently discovered XFS, MS's
> > response to Adobe's PDF format. Another standard - but from a different
> > organisation. As I said, everyone can have one. But who benefits?
> 
> Microsoft??

Yes.

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

#159090

On Tuesday 13 October 2015 23:24:40 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:39:58 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 19:37:34 Brian wrote:
> > > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> > >
> > :-)
> > :
> > > I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
> > > on debian-user.
> >
> > Yes, but it is usually soluble, and anyway, I thought that pdf was easier
> > from Windows.  It used to be.  But I haven't used Windows for a very long
> > time, so I may easily be wrong.
>
> The only solution to PDFs with XFA forms I found when I last looked at
> the situation was using Adobe Reader.
>
> Otherwise, my experience with PDF (viewing and printing) on Debian has
> been good. Not using Windows, I only recently discovered XFS, MS's
> response to Adobe's PDF format. Another standard - but from a different
> organisation. As I said, everyone can have one. But who benefits?

Microsoft??

Lisi

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

#159047

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> readable by Windows XP or Vista?

Yes, assuming they have installed acrobat reader (or similar), which is
basically a requirement.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off
everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the
chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had
deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves,
or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and
shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured
stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks
and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so
thoroughly that it had to be condemned and later demolished.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4

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

#159000

Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net):
> I use LaTeX to create a .tex document file, then I use dvips to generate
> a .ps file to send to my Postscript printer.
> 
> I would like to send a document file (.tex or .dvi or .ps) as an
> email attachment to an associate so that he can print a copy and file
> it.  There is no need for him to edit the file.  But my associate is
> running Windows, and does not have a Postscript printer.
> 
> Is there a fool-proof solution to this need?  I have considered asking
> my associate to install ghostscript, and I have considered purchasing
> a Postscript printer for him.  I do not know which Windows
> (XP, Vista, or 7) he is running.

Most people nowadays would produce .pdf files from LaTeX. I use
LuaLaTeX myself but I'm sure there are alternatives. I haven't looked
at a .dvi for years. I remember they're very quick to page through
multi-page documents, but graphic includes were a problem.

I've standardised on .pdf and .png for including in documents, and .pdf
for all output. I rely on tools like pdftk and pdfjam for juggling,
shuffling, bursting, collating, scaling, passwords, etc. Anyone can
read/print/manipulate my documents with no expenses/special tools.
Anything (like paps) that produces PostScript goes straight through
ps2pdf - -

Cheers,
David.

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

#159006

On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:23 pm, David Wright wrote:
> Most people nowadays would produce .pdf files from LaTeX. I use
> LuaLaTeX myself but I'm sure there are alternatives. I haven't looked
> at a .dvi for years. I remember they're very quick to page through
> multi-page documents, but graphic includes were a problem.

.pdf it is, then.  If my associate does not already have Adobe Reader, I
presume that he can download a free copy which runs under any version of
Windows, including XP and Vista.

On Debian, I have been using evince, but that is to view documents which I
obtain from other sources.

Documents which I generate almost always are destined for ink-on-paper.  I
compile with latex, and always have xdvi running in the background; thus I
always can inspect the latest typeset version.  To print, I use dvips and
then use lpr to send the Postscript file to the printer.

This is the first time I recall needing to transmit a document other than
by the postal service or by facsimile.

Russ

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

#159007

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 13/10/15 14:09, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Debian, I have been using evince, but that is to view documents which I
> obtain from other sources.

There's also a Windows port of Evince.

-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

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

#159010

On Mon, October 12, 2015 11:15 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
> There's also a Windows port of Evince.

Thanks, Stuart; that knowledge may be useful.  But installing Evince
likely is beyond the technical ability of my associate.  I hope that he
has Adobe Reader running.

Recently I was in an office and spoke with the resident Windows expert; I
was shocked to discover that I had a far better understanding of Windows
than did he, even though I have not had to grapple with Windows for almost
fifteen years now.  I remember how, years ago, regular observance of the
ritual of defragmenting the drive was essential, and consumed a
significant portion of the system uptime; I wonder whether that has
changed.

Russ

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

#159015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:45:33AM -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Mon, October 12, 2015 11:15 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
> > There's also a Windows port of Evince.
> 
> Thanks, Stuart; that knowledge may be useful.  But installing Evince
> likely is beyond the technical ability of my associate.  I hope that he
> has Adobe Reader running.

If he has -- too bad. If he hasn't, be sure to skim [1] and [2] before
making a recommendation.

(Executive summary: there are lots of nice, free PDF viewers, even for
Windows. The FSF has been making an effort to publicize that fact [3] and
to get web pages to recommend those alternatives too).

> Recently I was in an office and spoke with the resident Windows expert; I
> was shocked to discover that I had a far better understanding of Windows
> than did he, even though I have not had to grapple with Windows for almost
> fifteen years now.  I remember how, years ago, regular observance of the
> ritual of defragmenting the drive was essential, and consumed a
> significant portion of the system uptime; I wonder whether that has
> changed.

That's my experience too (with some exceptions, which always take me by
surprise :-)

There seems to be some affinity between those who choose a proprietary
OS and those who don't feel the urge to look under the hood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
[1] <http://pdfreaders.org/>
[2] <http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/five-apps/five-lightweight-and-free-pdf-viewers/>
[3] <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/reclaiming-the-pdf-from-adobe-reader>

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYcquQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYqmwCeKjASAWhUOVHhRH00jVdTvP9k
iokAnjzCEN9s+6Ayu5PJ1qiQfbyUCvP2
=SBS0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#159026

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 13/10/15 15:45, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Mon, October 12, 2015 11:15 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
>> There's also a Windows port of Evince.
> 
> Thanks, Stuart; that knowledge may be useful.  But installing Evince
> likely is beyond the technical ability of my associate.  I hope that he
> has Adobe Reader running.

Adobe Reader is harder to get going without winding up with an unwanted
guest coming along for the ride.

By the looks of things it has been nicely packaged as a .msi installer.

https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evince/Downloads

> Recently I was in an office and spoke with the resident Windows expert; I
> was shocked to discover that I had a far better understanding of Windows
> than did he, even though I have not had to grapple with Windows for almost
> fifteen years now.  I remember how, years ago, regular observance of the
> ritual of defragmenting the drive was essential, and consumed a
> significant portion of the system uptime; I wonder whether that has
> changed.

Not by a huge margin.  Better than it used to be, but still miles behind
the competition.  The fact that most Linux filesystem utility packages
lack a defragmentation tool is rather telling in my opinion.  About the
only one that comes to mind is xfs_fsr.

That said, we can bash Windows all we like, the fact of the matter is
that the "imposter effect" is a very real phenomenon and plenty exist in
the IT world in both the Windows and non-Windows camps.
-- 
Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL)

I haven't lost my mind...
  ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere.

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

#159101

On Mon, October 12, 2015 11:15 pm, Stuart Longland wrote:
> There's also a Windows port of Evince.

Stuart,

As a test, I found a running Windows 7 system with printer.  I downloaded
Evince and installed it without difficulty.  Then I viewed a PDF document
and printed it, without having to do any configuration of Evince or of the
system as a whole.  I am sure my associate can do the same.

The only problem I had was getting the W7 machine to see a USB flash stick
on which I had the document.  But I am going to be to my associate
documents as email attachments, so that is not an issue.

Now my only question is what happens when the email with PDF attachment
rings his "smartphone".  At present, I do not have a smartphone, and know
hardly anything about that system.

Russ

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

#159014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:23:19PM -0500, David Wright wrote:

> [...] I haven't looked
> at a .dvi for years. I remember they're very quick to page through
> multi-page documents, but graphic includes were a problem.

FWIW I still use dvi for the "local part" of my workflow. Much quicker
than the bloated PDF.

When sending to someone with a "challenged" operating system (or when
doing graphical tricks which transcend what dvi was designed for), then
PDF it is, of course.

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYcqLoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYOpACeMRiCHLRwyyGLylmgB9/UHMX6
4VQAnjAeRl6CmESYx8jkpT121LE3qs3y
=lcIF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web