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

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

On Sat, Aug 11 2007, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> 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.

To make it more clear: I just didn't propose to remove the PS files,
but I won't object.

Some minor remarks...

> PS files can be generated just fine on those older systems.

Some refcards need special TeX variants (cs-refcard, pl-refcard).  But
if the user is interested in those refcard, probably these TeX
variants are available, too.

> PDF can be rendered faster than PS, is generally safer than PS (by virtue
> of not being Turing-complete), is generally smaller as well, and can be
> handled (e.g. searched) more easily.
>
> The only downside I know of PDFs is that the tools to manipulate them
> (e.g. put them in 2up

The pdfpages for pdfLaTeX does it.  But it's not a simple as running
psnup.

> or copy/paste some part of it) are rather lacking in the Free
> Software world.

Copy/paste doesn't work worse than for PS.

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