Re: How are Windows users supposed to print the PostScript refcards?

[Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>]

[Resent, sorry if the message appears twice.]

On Fri, Aug 10 2007, Michaël Cadilhac wrote:

> Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:
>> How about deleting the postscript files and replacing them with the
>> pdfs?
>
> Note sure which part of your answer was ironic :-) Seriously, adding PDF
> is an idea we can consider ; AFAIK /normal/ people tend to use PDF over
> PS. Is deleting PS files such a harm ?

I think adding *.pdf is fine (only ~ 1 MB) for a real benefit of many
users.  I didn't suggest to remove the PS versions, because on typical
GNU/Linux systems, the PDF would be converted to PS during the
printing process (e.g. with CUPS filters) so I'd rather keep the PS
files.  If size disk space is important, we may gzip the PS files like
we do for *.el.  Older Unix or GNU/Linux systems might not even be
able to print PDF while they can handle PS fine.

>> After all, a few MB here, a few MB there, and soon we're talking
>> about real memory.
>
> Well, with your proposition, we'd use less MB:
>
> $ cd ~/src/emacs/etc
> $ for f (*.ps) ps2pdf $f
> $ du -hc *.ps | tail -n1
> 3.0M    total
> $ du -hc *.pdf | tail -n1
> 1.2M    total

There's no reason to convert ps-prin0.ps and ps-prin1.ps to PDF.  And
we surely should not delete these two PS files.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/