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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #209854 > unrolled thread

Reading pdf files

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

Contents

  Reading pdf files "k. jantzen" <kdjmailing@mailbox.org> - 2019-06-13 16:50 +0200
    Re: Reading pdf files Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2019-06-13 17:30 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-06-13 18:20 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2019-06-15 05:40 +0200
          Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-15 09:40 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-06-15 14:30 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2019-06-15 16:40 +0200
              Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-15 17:00 +0200
                Re: Reading pdf files Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2019-06-15 17:50 +0200
                  Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-15 18:50 +0200
                    Re: Reading pdf files Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2019-06-16 17:40 +0200
                      Re: Reading pdf files Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> - 2019-06-16 22:00 +0200
                  Re: Offlist: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2019-06-16 18:40 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 16:50 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Sarunas Burdulis <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> - 2019-06-13 18:30 +0200
    Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-13 18:50 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 15:40 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-14 16:30 +0200
    Re: Reading pdf files Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-06-14 11:00 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 21:00 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-06-15 07:40 +0200
          Re: Reading pdf files Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-15 10:00 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-15 10:10 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-15 10:10 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2019-06-15 10:20 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files Rory Campbell-Lange <rory@campbell-lange.net> - 2019-06-15 18:50 +0200
            Re: Reading pdf files David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-22 04:00 +0200
              Re: Reading pdf files Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-06-23 04:40 +0200
                Re: Reading pdf files David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-24 01:40 +0200
                  Re: Reading pdf files Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-06-24 04:40 +0200
    Re: Reading pdf files "k. jantzen" <kdjmailing@mailbox.org> - 2019-06-15 18:00 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-06-15 18:40 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-15 19:00 +0200
      Re: Reading pdf files Fred <fred@blakemfg.com> - 2019-06-15 21:20 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files Sarunas Burdulis <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> - 2019-06-17 15:30 +0200
          Re: Reading pdf files Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-17 18:10 +0200
        Re: Reading pdf files franiortiz hotmail <franiortiz@hotmail.com> - 2019-06-17 23:10 +0200
          Re: Reading pdf files Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-18 09:20 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#209854 — Reading pdf files

Hello,

in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf 
or documentviewer.

But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I 
have to go to Windows to open it.

What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the 
above mentioned programs? Is there another program that would read such 
a file?

Thanks for your help.
-- 

K.D.J.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#209856

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

Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?

Best

Hans
> Hello,
> 
> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
> or documentviewer.
> 
> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
> have to go to Windows to open it.
> 
> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the
> above mentioned programs? Is there another program that would read such
> a file?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

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

#209858

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200
Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
> Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
> 
> Best
> 
> Hans
> > Hello,
> > 
> > in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
> > xpdf or documentviewer.
> > 
> > But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then
> > I have to go to Windows to open it.
> > 
> > What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read
> > by the above mentioned programs? Is there another program that
> > would read such a file?
> > 

Not all PDF generation programs produce good code. Some PDF readers are
better than others at displaying technically invalid PDFs. I've had
some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a few
other funnies that I can't remember now.

Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and of
course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable forms.

-- 
Joe

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

#209917

On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200
> Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
>> Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Hans
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
>>> xpdf or documentviewer.
>>>
>>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then
>>> I have to go to Windows to open it.
>>>
>>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read
>>> by the above mentioned programs? Is there another program that
>>> would read such a file?
>>>
> Not all PDF generation programs produce good code. Some PDF readers are
> better than others at displaying technically invalid PDFs. I've had
> some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a few
> other funnies that I can't remember now.
>
> Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and of
> course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable forms.
Never had a problem with PDF forms using Okular.

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

#209922

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

[ quotes reordered by time - please consider not top-posting, Hans ]

Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 05:35:58)
> On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
>>>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either 
>>>> xpdf or documentviewer.
>>>>
>>>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then 
>>>> I have to go to Windows to open it.
>>>>
>>>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read 
>>>> by the above mentioned programs? Is there another program that 
>>>> would read such a file?

>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200 Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>>> Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?

>> Not all PDF generation programs produce good code. Some PDF readers 
>> are better than others at displaying technically invalid PDFs. I've 
>> had some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a 
>> few other funnies that I can't remember now.
>>
>> Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and 
>> of course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable forms.
> Never had a problem with PDF forms using Okular.

A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an 
otherwise non-KDE environment.

Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, though :-)


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#209929

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200 Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>> Never had a problem with PDF forms using Okular.
>
>A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an
>otherwise non-KDE environment.

I haven't had any better luck with okular than with any of the other 
options for problematic pdf files.

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

#209939

On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> [ quotes reordered by time - please consider not top-posting, Hans ]
>
> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 05:35:58)
>> On 2019-06-13 12:10 p.m., Joe wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
>>>>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
>>>>> xpdf or documentviewer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then
>>>>> I have to go to Windows to open it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read
>>>>> by the above mentioned programs? Is there another program that
>>>>> would read such a file?
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200 Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>>>> Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
>>> Not all PDF generation programs produce good code. Some PDF readers
>>> are better than others at displaying technically invalid PDFs. I've
>>> had some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a
>>> few other funnies that I can't remember now.
>>>
>>> Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and
>>> of course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable forms.
>> Never had a problem with PDF forms using Okular.
> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an
> otherwise non-KDE environment.
>
> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, though :-)

However few people do completely without KDE or GTK programs these days, 
and disk & memory are cheap so that is really a non-issue. Plus 
KDE/Plasma is now divorced from its toolkit so you don't have to bring 
in all of the desktop to run an application.

25 years ago, creating PDFs was a hit or miss affair without Adobe tools 
but it's been a long time since I've seen a PDF that Okular couldn't 
handle. I do have Acrobat XI (from 2011?) running under Wine but it's 
been so long since I used it that I had to start it up to verify that it 
was still installed.

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

#209940

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

Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an 
>> otherwise non-KDE environment.
>>
>> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, though 
>> :-)
>
> However few people do completely without KDE or GTK programs these 
> days,

It is rare to avoid *both* KDE and GTK but common to avoid *either*.


> and disk & memory are cheap so that is really a non-issue.

Good for you that it is a non-issue for _you_.

> 25 years ago, creating PDFs was a hit or miss affair without Adobe 
> tools but it's been a long time since I've seen a PDF that Okular 
> couldn't handle.

Again, good for you.

I sincerely hope the original poster is in a similar situation as you.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#209942

On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
>> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in an
>>> otherwise non-KDE environment.
>>>
>>> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, though
>>> :-)
>> However few people do completely without KDE or GTK programs these
>> days,
> It is rare to avoid *both* KDE and GTK but common to avoid *either*.
No. While there are a lot of people who don't use Gnome or Plasma 5, 
it's virtually impossible to run a desktop system with no applications 
using either toolkit in at least some applications.
>
>
>> and disk & memory are cheap so that is really a non-issue.
> Good for you that it is a non-issue for _you_.

Apart from some legacy machines, there are few desktop systems that lack 
sufficient resources to run modern applications. I've got an old Socket 
939 system that has plenty of resources to run Plasma 5. It's not as 
fast as modern hardware, but it isn't that slow either.


>
>> 25 years ago, creating PDFs was a hit or miss affair without Adobe
>> tools but it's been a long time since I've seen a PDF that Okular
>> couldn't handle.
> Again, good for you.
>
> I sincerely hope the original poster is in a similar situation as you.
I agree that anecdotes aren't evidence. However that works both ways.

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

#209948

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

Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 17:46:50)
> On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
>>> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in 
>>>> an otherwise non-KDE environment.
>>>>
>>>> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader, 
>>>> though :-)
>>> However few people do completely without KDE or GTK programs these 
>>> days,
>> It is rare to avoid *both* KDE and GTK but common to avoid *either*.
> No. While there are a lot of people who don't use Gnome or Plasma 5, 
> it's virtually impossible to run a desktop system with no applications 
> using either toolkit in at least some applications.

We agree it is uncommon to use both (you go further and claim it is even 
common to use neither), and we agree it is common to use either one or 
the other (you go further and claim it is extremely common). :-)


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#209961

On 2019-06-15 12:43 p.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 17:46:50)
>> On 2019-06-15 10:56 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Quoting Gary Dale (2019-06-15 16:31:28)
>>>> On 2019-06-15 3:39 a.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>>> A reason to avoid Okular is its memory and disk size when used in
>>>>> an otherwise non-KDE environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Far better than (e.g. virtualized) Windows with Adobe Reader,
>>>>> though :-)
>>>> However few people do completely without KDE or GTK programs these
>>>> days,
>>> It is rare to avoid *both* KDE and GTK but common to avoid *either*.
>> No. While there are a lot of people who don't use Gnome or Plasma 5,
>> it's virtually impossible to run a desktop system with no applications
>> using either toolkit in at least some applications.
> We agree it is uncommon to use both (you go further and claim it is even
> common to use neither), and we agree it is common to use either one or
> the other (you go further and claim it is extremely common). :-)

There is a difference between "a lot of people" and common. Gnome and 
KDE/Plasma 5 are common, Cinnamon is widely used. A lot of people use 
XFCE or LXDE.

Gnome and Plasma are common because they run just fine on 90% of the 
hardware out there. Cinnamon doesn't use either but is still based on 
GTK, as is Mate. There are a lot of desktops but most of them are built 
on either Qt or GTK.

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

#209967

On 16/06/19, Gary Dale (gary@extremeground.com) wrote:
> On 2019-06-15 12:43 p.m., Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> > We agree it is uncommon to use both (you go further and claim it is even
> > common to use neither), and we agree it is common to use either one or
> > the other (you go further and claim it is extremely common). :-)
> 
> There is a difference between "a lot of people" and common. Gnome and
> KDE/Plasma 5 are common, Cinnamon is widely used. A lot of people use XFCE
> or LXDE.
> 
> Gnome and Plasma are common because they run just fine on 90% of the
> hardware out there. Cinnamon doesn't use either but is still based on GTK,
> as is Mate. There are a lot of desktops but most of them are built on either
> Qt or GTK.

I think Jonas may have been enjoying some "logical and/or" humour.

Everyone in our office uses i3. I thought that choice was very common
these days. Certainly the Qt/GTK subsystems still have to be around for
app support.

Rory

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

#209963 — Re: Offlist: Reading pdf files

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

Quoting Steve Litt (2019-06-16 09:04:14)
[ stuff posted off list ]

Please don't move the conversation off the list.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#210047

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

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 12:11 PM Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:28:10 +0200
> Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2019, 16:29:27 CEST schrieb k. jantzen:
> > Did you try "Evince" or "Okular"?
>

I like evince.

> >
> > > in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either
> > > xpdf or documentviewer.
> > >
> > > But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then
> > > I have to go to Windows to open it.
> > >
> > > What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read
> > > by the above mentioned programs? Is there another program that
> > > would read such a file?
> > >
>
> Not all PDF generation programs produce good code. Some PDF readers are
> better than others at displaying technically invalid PDFs. I've had
> some trouble viewing PDFs exported by LibreCAD in Evince, and a few
> other funnies that I can't remember now.
>
> Adobe Reader does seem a bit better at dealing with dodgy files, and of
> course it deals with the extended PDFs e.g. editable forms.
>

On one of my Ubuntu Systems, I bit the bullet and installed Adobe's Reader
but, after seeing how Adobe wanted to take charge of my pdf files, and not
be "nice" about CPU and Memory usage, I stopped using it, but left it, as a
Resource for "dodgy pdf files".

I never tried to install it under Debian, and noticed another response,
about it, perhaps not being kept up to date?

Kenneth Parker

>
> --
> Joe
>
>

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

#209859

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

...
>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
>> or documentviewer.
>>
>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
>> have to go to Windows to open it.
>>
>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the
>> above mentioned programs? Is there another program that would read such
>> a file?

It's hard to tell, without having those files. PDF has many variants and
options. I too have encountered some, though very few, which only open
with Adobe Reader. As I recall, they were just PDF "shells" with
instructions to load actual contents remotely...

-- 
Sarunas Burdulis
Systems Administrator, Dartmouth Mathematics
math.dartmouth.edu/~sarunas

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

#209860

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

Quoting k. jantzen (2019-06-13 16:29:27)
> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf 
> or documentviewer.
> 
> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I 
> have to go to Windows to open it.
> 
> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by 
> the above mentioned programs?

PDF is a big complex data format, and several things could have gone 
wrong, including the file being broken (but in a way that some 
commercial viewers handle more graceful than what you tried on Linux) 
and the files using features from newer revisions of PDF than is 
implemented in those Linux viewers.

> Is there another program that would read such a file?

There are many PDF viewers in Debian.  Probably best way to sift through 
them is to install the package apt-xapian-index and run these:

  axi-cache search pdf viewer
  axi-cache more


When your interest is in what PDF files the applications can render, 
then you need not try them all but can check which underlying PDF 
rendering library they use which are far more limited.

Evince (a.k.a. "documentviewer"), Xpdf, Okular, Atril, Qpdfview and 
others use Poppler:

  apt rdepends libpoppler*

Gv and others use Ghostscript:

  apt rdepends libgs9 ghostscript ghostscript-x

MuPDF uses its own renderer (developed by same authors as Ghostscript 
but an independent codebase):

  apt rdepends qpdf

PDF.js is used in some web browsers:

  apt rdepends pdf.js-common libjs-pdf

latexdraw (more a programming tool than a viewer) uses The PDF Renderer.

  apt rdepends libpdfrenderer-java

Calibre and others use PoDoFo:

  apt rdepends libpodofo*

CUPS filters (for printing not a viewer) use QPDF:

  apt rdepends libqpdf*


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#209901

On 6/13/19, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting k. jantzen (2019-06-13 16:29:27)
>> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
>> or documentviewer.
>>
>> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
>> have to go to Windows to open it.
>>
>> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by
>> the above mentioned programs?
>
> PDF is a big complex data format, and several things could have gone
> wrong, including the file being broken (but in a way that some
> commercial viewers handle more graceful than what you tried on Linux)
> and the files using features from newer revisions of PDF than is
> implemented in those Linux viewers.
>
>> Is there another program that would read such a file?
>
> There are many PDF viewers in Debian.  Probably best way to sift through
> them is to install the package apt-xapian-index and run these:
>
>   axi-cache search pdf viewer
>   axi-cache more
>
>
> When your interest is in what PDF files the applications can render,
> then you need not try them all but can check which underlying PDF
> rendering library they use which are far more limited.
>
> Evince (a.k.a. "documentviewer"), Xpdf, Okular, Atril, Qpdfview and
> others use Poppler:


I started using Atril in last couple years after seeing it mentioned
over on Debian-Accessibility. I haven't used anything else since. I
haven't had any problems reading PDF files, but that just that means
that maybe I haven't encountered any files written in a less than
optimal way..

Wandering off now wondering.... didn't or doesn't one of the viewers
let us do some editing in addition to "just" being a viewer? I'm not
finding it via a couple fairly non-invasive "apt-cache search"
attempts via "main" repositories only. I'm sure I'm not imagining it.
Seems like I remember either mentioning that feature over at
Accessibility or at least thinking about mentioning having encountered
it ages ago. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed *

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

#209904

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

Quoting Cindy Sue Causey (2019-06-14 15:32:20)
> On 6/13/19, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> > Quoting k. jantzen (2019-06-13 16:29:27)
> >> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf
> >> or documentviewer.
> >>
> >> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I
> >> have to go to Windows to open it.
> >>
> >> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by
> >> the above mentioned programs?
> >
> > PDF is a big complex data format, and several things could have gone
> > wrong, including the file being broken (but in a way that some
> > commercial viewers handle more graceful than what you tried on Linux)
> > and the files using features from newer revisions of PDF than is
> > implemented in those Linux viewers.
> >
> >> Is there another program that would read such a file?
> >
> > There are many PDF viewers in Debian.  Probably best way to sift through
> > them is to install the package apt-xapian-index and run these:
> >
> >   axi-cache search pdf viewer
> >   axi-cache more
> >
> >
> > When your interest is in what PDF files the applications can render,
> > then you need not try them all but can check which underlying PDF
> > rendering library they use which are far more limited.
> >
> > Evince (a.k.a. "documentviewer"), Xpdf, Okular, Atril, Qpdfview and
> > others use Poppler:
> 
> 
> I started using Atril in last couple years after seeing it mentioned
> over on Debian-Accessibility. I haven't used anything else since. I
> haven't had any problems reading PDF files, but that just that means
> that maybe I haven't encountered any files written in a less than
> optimal way..
> 
> Wandering off now wondering.... didn't or doesn't one of the viewers 
> let us do some editing in addition to "just" being a viewer? I'm not 
> finding it via a couple fairly non-invasive "apt-cache search" 
> attempts via "main" repositories only. I'm sure I'm not imagining it. 
> Seems like I remember either mentioning that feature over at 
> Accessibility or at least thinking about mentioning having encountered 
> it ages ago. :)

PDF "editing" can mean several things:

  * PDF files containing XFA forms that a viewer offers to fill out
  * Adding bookmarks
  * Adding annotations
  * Re-rendering (essentially creating a new PDF inspired by the old)

Okular was the first to support XFA.  Nowadays Evince should do too, and 
possible simpler derivatives too like Atril.  A common problem is font 
sizes handled wrongly - sometimes solved by installing fonts (e.g. 
Microsoft-ish ones).

Inkscape and Scribus can (crudely) re-render PDFs (as can many scripting 
tools albeit not interactively).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

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

#209883

On 13.06.19 16:29, k. jantzen wrote:
> 
> in general I do not have a problem reading a pdf file with either xpdf or
> documentviewer.

Yup, documentviewer will sometimes show faint lines better, I find, but
it's easy to set the background colour in xpdf.

> But once in a while I get a pdf file that they cannot read and then I have
> to go to Windows to open it.
> 
> What is so spectacular about these files that they cannot be read by the
> above mentioned programs?

That varies, and a reader with good error messages is the easiest way to
find out.

> Is there another program that would read such a file?

Well, given s/would/could, try mupdf:

$ apt-cache search mupdf
mupdf - lightweight PDF viewer
mupdf-tools - commmand line tools for the MuPDF viewer
libmupdf-dev - development files for the MuPDF viewer

In my case, a pdf certificate from a state authority displayed the logo
and signature in xpdf, but none of the text - not much use at all.

A quick install of mupdf not only allowed the whole document to be
displayed, but issued (a squillion times) the following error message on
stderr:

Error: Couldn't create a font for 'ABCDEE+Calibri,Bold'
Error: Found a bad table definition on true type definition, trying to continue...

after an initial:

Error: PDF file is damaged - attempting to reconstruct xref table...

I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
hand.

Erik

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

#209913

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:50:22 +1000
Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> wrote:

...

> I only use mupdf for problem pdf files, but it's very nifty to have on
> hand.

I actually love mupdf, and I use it as my main pdf reader. It's just so
lightweight and easy to use for basic pdf reading.

Celejar

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web