2:35 p.m.
Hi,
is there any good way to get the paper to be in landscape as well as the
text, for pdf files created with
paps --cpi 20 --font="DejaVu Sans Mono" --landscape somefile.txt |ps2pdf -
somefile.pdf
This prints the text in landscape, and the paper shows in portrait so
you need to turn your head when displaying the file with xpdf :(
I'm currently using enscript which requires to recode UTF-8..latin1 the
files before using enscript on them, and apparently enscript only
understands AFM fonts. The result isn't as pretty, but at least the
paper is in landscape, too.
Landscape is important because the files to convert are basically emacs
org mode tables, and I can't do them in LaTeX because tables that could
go over multiple pages are a major pita with LaTeX. Maybe they can more
reasonably be converted by emacs itself in batch mode and I just haven't
found out how to do that?
--
Fedora 18
6:52 p.m.
You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like to print
anything you like to the virtual pdf printer.
5:58 p.m.
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> writes:
As far as the original poster's question is concerned, I have
printed
landscape documents, with text and diagrams. I used OpenOffice.org, or
the LibreOffice version, and used its own export as PDF function.
I ruled out Libreoffice quite a while ago because it isn't up to the
task. Not even a simple mailmerge worked without crashing LO, and the
closer I looked at it, the more bugs I found that were getting in the
way. So I went with LaTeX (and had to do without tables for that part
because LaTeX cannot reasonably handle tables that may go over several
pages and may contain tables --- which is something LO does just fine).
For anything serious and/or versatile/flexible, you can't get around
LaTeX. Besides, things like LO come and go, and after a couple years,
you might not be able to read your documents anymore: The effort you'd
have to spend on learning how to program LO is much better spent on
learning more about LaTeX (and maybe perl) because those will very
likely still be around in another twenty years or so when LO may be long
gone.
There are some advantages to using one or the other, it depends on
what
you're doing. Supposedly, using an export option in a desktop
publishing program should give you more control over layout,
DTP programs and WYSIWYG word processors and/or so-called "office
software" like Libreoffice are totally different worlds. WYSIWYG word
processors don't even have the /concept/ of pages. Try to do something
with "a page" in one and you'll find that you need a DTP program.
Did they add a DTP module to LO now? If they did, I might even install
LO just to try out the DTP part.
and maybe more coherent placement of text.
Uhm, did you ever try to coherently place text (and/or other stuff that
goes on pages) with Scribus? About 15 years ago, you could do that with
Timeworks Publisher and Ventura if you could find the time to between
having to reboot every 3--20 minutes. Sadly, Scribus totally misses the
point of a DTP program. It's like gimp, except that Scribus deals with
pages and gimp doesn't.
Ever tried highlighting and copying text from a PDF? Sometimes it
can
be impossible to get several paragraphs to copy in a sensible order.
Yes, I use xpdf for that. Most of the other pdf viewers don't even let
you mark some text. There's also pdf2text or so, so you can puzzle
something together.
--
Fedora 18
12:01 a.m.
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> writes:
lee:
> I ruled out Libreoffice quite a while ago because it isn't up to the
> task. Not even a simple mailmerge worked without crashing LO, and the
> closer I looked at it, the more bugs I found that were getting in the
> way. So I went with LaTeX (and had to do without tables for that part
> because LaTeX cannot reasonably handle tables that may go over several
> pages and may contain tables --- which is something LO does just fine).
Well, the point was about using some program that lets you create a page
in the way that you preview it, and it will print quite close to how the
preview looked...
Hm, that wasn't my point/question, maybe I overlooked something? LO
did do a good job with exporting to PDF last time I used it.
For what it's worth, I've never tried mail merge at home, but
I have
tried it on Microsoft's Office (some time ago), and found *that* buggy
as hell. But I'm not surprised.
Hm IIRC when I did that with M$ Office, I used an Access database and it
worked just fine. Alas, there's nothing I know of for Linux that could
keep up with Access.
Just about all programs let you down in some area, often because
what
you wanted to do was not considered important, or even known about, by
the program author. They wrote it to solve their own problems, if it's
useful for anyone else, that's just a bonus.
Still I'm finding it just amazing that it turns out to be so complicated
to simply convert a text file into a pdf.
> LaTeX. Besides, things like LO come and go, and after a couple
years,
> you might not be able to read your documents anymore: The effort you'd
> have to spend on learning how to program LO is much better spent on
> learning more about LaTeX (and maybe perl) because those will very
> likely still be around in another twenty years or so when LO may be long
> gone.
Well, OpenOffice.org has been around for many years, somewhere around as
long as Fedora, if I recall correctly (it was StarOffice, before).
LibreOffice is newer, so I'm not that willing to predict its
longevity.
LO is the successor --- IIRC, someone bought whoever made SO and changed
licensing or something, so the devs moved off and forked LO. Does SO
even still exist?
You might be surprised how old SO is ...
Like OpenOffice.org, we could only predict the longevity of LaTex by
past experience, it *could* disappear tomorrow, if the authors give up,
or some patent arsehole goes after it. Or you could be stuck with your
distro or Operating System not supporting it.
Same is true for LO and other WYSIWYG word processors. My experience is
that things like emacs, LaTeX and fvwm have been around for ages during
which many WYSIWYG word processors came and go: hence the assumption
that emacs, LaTeX and fvwm seem more likely to still be there when
current WYSIWYG things like LO are gone.
And there's one big advantage: Even if LaTeX and emacs would suddenly
disappear, the ability to display (and edit) text is even more likely to
remain than a particular piece of software used for this very purpose.
I have LaTeX sources from almost 20 years ago and they are still fully
useable. Without LaTeX, I'd still be able to read them.
Try that with documents created with Ami Word, aztec, Applix, Signum and
a lot of other software the name of which I don't even remember anymore.
I'd almost bet that you'd encounter some problems to read Staroffice
files that were created on OS/2 ~20 years ago despite SO has gone away
only recently (or even still exists somewhere).
Besides, I've yet to see any WYSIWYG word processor that comes even
close to producing output with the quality you get from LaTeX.
Factor in all the buggyness the software that has been around for ages
doesn't have and you really start asking yourself why you should waste
your time with learning something else ... I did, and I came back to
the old stuff after finding out that I've been wasting my time and would
be better off now if I had invested the learning effort at the right
place to begin with. This stuff just works instead of having a million
features tending to get into the way, features nobody needs, while not
even getting the basics straight.
Don't get me wrong, if you write a letter once or twice a year, you're
probably better off with LO. If you want to write a book or many
letters, you're better off with emacs and LaTeX --- or vi, I guess. If
you like shuffling around windows on your screen a lot and staring at
fancy effects and/or icons that slow your computer down, use maybe kde
or gnome or compitz. If you want a great window manager, learn fvwm,
and if you want a window manager that manages the windows for you
instead of doing that yourself, use i3. And xterm also still works best
...
I have been bitten by office software using proprietary data
formats,
long ago, being left with mostly unusable data. It could be
hand-scraped, to try and get all the data out of the crap.
yeah
But fortunately, I really only cared about two documents on file,
the
rest had been printed, and that was good enough for us.
OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice use an open document format, so future
use of old data should not be impossible.
Unless you really need that for some reason, try LaTeX ...
I have looked at Tex/LaTeX in the past, and considered it akin to
learning to use an offset press, mechanically, by hand. Unless I had
a real use for it, such as providing print-ready data to an actual
printing house, I don't consider it worth my time.
The offset press or LaTeX?
> DTP programs and WYSIWYG word processors and/or so-called
"office
> software" like Libreoffice are totally different worlds. WYSIWYG word
> processors don't even have the /concept/ of pages. Try to do something
> with "a page" in one and you'll find that you need a DTP program.
>
> Did they add a DTP module to LO now? If they did, I might even install
> LO just to try out the DTP part.
I didn't say that. I mentioned two different things, in two different
paragraphs: (1) I've used OpenOffice and LibreOffice to do what the
original post talked about.
The OP was a question about how to convert text files into pdf?
Now, I'll emphasise that second one even more - exporting from a
DTP
program *should* give you *more* control over layout.
I have used DTP software, in the past, and I'm well aware of the
differences between them. Hence what I said, earlier.
I don't understand why/how you expect a DTP program to do the layout and
placement of text like magically by itself through means of export
options.
When I convert --- or you could say export --- a text file into a pdf, I
don't expect any fancy layout or placement of text but, plain and
simple, the text "printed" on the "piece of paper" which the pdf is a
substitute for. If I wanted fancy layout and special text placement,
I'd have to do something else to get that.
I don't agree that word processors (of the kind like in
OpenOffice,
etc), don't have a concept of pages.
Then how do you do something with a particular page? Try to put a
particular part of the text or a particular graphic or table onto a
particular page with a WYSIWYG WP without the WP screwing everything up
when you make changes somewhere above where that particular
text/graphic/table is and sometimes even below of it. Try to force a
particular page to have a different layout than other pages. Good luck
with that ...
WYSIWYG WPs only consider what you could call a continuous flow of
content. They don't do associations of content with pages. The very
concept of pages is pretty incompatible with WYSIWYG WPs. That's fine
as long as you don't need to do any particular layout.
They don't do a particularly good job at it, but there are
page-related controls and features. Some of which sort-of work.
e.g. Widow and orphan control finally being included, a few years
back. Though you still had to manually reconfigure things so that the
program couldn't stupidly put a page break between a heading and the
following content. Geez, that ought to be preset, by default.
That's one of the beautiful things with LaTeX: You don't need to worry
about these things because it's all done for you. That isn't exactly
true because you still need to make it so, but you set that up in one
place and then you're done with it. With a WYSIWYG WP, I end up
creating 15 different styles for paragraphs and then finding out that I
still need more because there's something else that needs special
treatment and that I forgot what half of them were for because it took
so long to figure out how to create and apply the ones created that I
have to come back to it the next day. The alternative is "I don't
care", and when the document is longer than a page or two, there's no
point in even bothering with LO since LaTeX is faster and looks much
better out of the box.
No matter what software you use, you're still left with having
to
hand-control certain things. Like manually using no-break spaces in the
middle of phone numbers, between Mr and surname, and other similar
things, because that's just lousy presentation. And we're still left
with exceedingly inadequate keyboards for doing the most basic of
punctuation (proper dashes, proper quotes, etc).
Yes, computers are stupid, the question is what is the best way to make
them do what you need them to. That can be a WYSIWYG WP or an edior, a
DTP program or LaTeX, or whatever.
A while ago I was researching the possibility of getting a keyboard that
has 122 keys. Unfortunately, such appear to be incompatible with the
hardware we have :( You can get some that send character combinations
for the extra keys, but that doesn't seem very useful. Other than that,
how much do you actually use keys like F12, Print, Scroll Lock, Pause?
You can always put quotes and other things you frequently need onto
them.
>> and maybe more coherent placement of text.
> Uhm, did you ever try to coherently place text (and/or other stuff that
> goes on pages) with Scribus?
I've only vaguely played with Scribus, I found it horrible. Luckily I
don't have a real need for DTP, it's been well over twenty years since
I've used friendly, or even tolerable, DTP software.
same here
Still I wish we had a useable DTP program.
--
Fedora 18
6:57 p.m.
Rolf Turner <r.turner(a)auckland.ac.nz> writes:
On 16/06/13 16:03, lee wrote:
<SNIP>
> Like I said, tables that may go over several pages are a pita with
> LaTeX. There are some packages to handle them, and the ones I tried
> failed miserably. If that was working, the output would look a lot
> better.
I have had good experiences with the longtable package. Does this
not do what you need?
Nope, there were all kinds of problems with it. IIRC, I tried two
different packages, one them being longtable, and I couldn't produce the
output I needed. I don't remember exactly all the problems ... Either
the table wouldn't fit or wouldn't go on over pages or was misplaced, or
things got broken because environments were used inside the table which
the table couldn't handle. Try a table that goes over several pages and
has tables and enumerations inside of it, something like that ...
What I'm dealing with now is emacs org mode tables: a simple table with
three columns and an undefined number of rows, one per file. That's
much easier to edit for me than a LaTeX source creating such a table. I
could make a perl script to convert these tables to something LaTeX
would understand, but I'm very reluctant to go to such lengths just to
find out that it doesn't really work with multi-page tables anyway.
Converting these org files into PDF shouldn't be so difficult :)
--
Fedora 18
6:35 p.m.
On 16/06/13 16:03, lee wrote:
<SNIP>
Like I said, tables that may go over several pages are a pita with
LaTeX. There are some packages to handle them, and the ones I tried
failed miserably. If that was working, the output would look a lot better.
I have had good experiences with the longtable package. Does this
not do what you need?
cheers,
Rolf Turner
<SNIP>
5:03 p.m.
Terry Polzin <foxec208(a)wowway.com> writes:
My method,
[command] | a2ps [options] -o - | ps2pdf - [output file name]
Thanks, a2ps looks somewhat promising with options like:
a2ps --borders=0 -B --columns=1 -l 150
Apparently it doesn't do line breaks and prints the ends of long lines
outside the page, so I might have to check line length in my script
which would be a good idea anyway.
--
Fedora 18
7:46 a.m.
On 06/16/13 20:41, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/13 19:33, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 06/16/2013 12:52 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 06/16/13 18:29, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>> Tom Horsley wrote:
>>>
>>>> You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like
>>> such as?
>> Such as lpr.
>>
>> Installing cups-pdf creates a printer called Cups-PDF.
>>
>> So, you would use....
>>
>> lpr -P Cups-PDF whatever
>>
>> And you'd get a whatever.pdf on your desktop (default behavior).
>>
> Ed,
>
> In my /etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf, the default output is:
>
>
> ### Default: /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
>
> Kind regards
>
> Joachim Backes
>
Here, on F18 it is....
### Default: /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
#Out /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
Out ${DESKTOP}
So, Out is defined thus making it put the Output on the Desktop...
And what I meant to add was that this is a newly installed package....so by
"default" I meant the Fedora configured "default" and not the
"default" if "Out" is undefined in the config file. :-)
--
The only thing worse than a poorly asked question is a cryptic answer.
7:41 a.m.
On 06/16/13 19:33, Joachim Backes wrote:
On 06/16/2013 12:52 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/16/13 18:29, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Tom Horsley wrote:
>>
>>> You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like
>> such as?
>
> Such as lpr.
>
> Installing cups-pdf creates a printer called Cups-PDF.
>
> So, you would use....
>
> lpr -P Cups-PDF whatever
>
> And you'd get a whatever.pdf on your desktop (default behavior).
>
Ed,
In my /etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf, the default output is:
### Default: /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
Here, on F18 it is....
### Default: /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
#Out /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
Out ${DESKTOP}
So, Out is defined thus making it put the Output on the Desktop...
--
The only thing worse than a poorly asked question is a cryptic answer.
6:03 a.m.
Tom Horsley:
> You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like
Timothy Murphy:
such as?
Any program that can print to the printer, and you can select which
printer it prints to. You choose the PDF printout option.
Having said that, I haven't got cups-pdf installed, yet if I call up the
print requester to print something (such as this email), and pick the
print-to-file option, I have options to produce a file that's PDF,
Postscript, or SVG. And they all work.
~]$ rpm -qa cups\*
cups-libs-1.5.4-18.fc17.i686
cups-pk-helper-0.2.2-2.fc17.x86_64
cups-libs-1.5.4-18.fc17.x86_64
cups-1.5.4-18.fc17.x86_64
As far as the original poster's question is concerned, I have printed
landscape documents, with text and diagrams. I used OpenOffice.org, or
the LibreOffice version, and used its own export as PDF function.
There are some advantages to using one or the other, it depends on what
you're doing. Supposedly, using an export option in a desktop
publishing program should give you more control over layout, and maybe
more coherent placement of text. Ever tried highlighting and copying
text from a PDF? Sometimes it can be impossible to get several
paragraphs to copy in a sensible order.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.8.13-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon May 13 13:36:17 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
10:15 p.m.
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:10:43 +0200
lee wrote:
> BTW, how would I control where cups puts the pdf files it creates?
Nope. Like virtually everything else, it puts the files where
the linux developers think they obviously belong (until the next
developers come along and change where they go :-).
I think they wind up in ~/Documents, but I'm not sure.
Whenever I print to file, cups asks me where I want it.
That said, I think the default is ~/Documents/out.pdf .
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily
7:43 p.m.
On 06/15/2013 07:52 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like to print
anything you like to the virtual pdf printer.
Thats the procedure I normally
use...makes it easy to get a padf
configured and printed in a jiffy with very few problems!.
EGO II
12:34 a.m.
On 06/16/2013 05:15 AM, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:10:43 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> BTW, how would I control where cups puts the pdf files it creates?
>
> Nope. Like virtually everything else, it puts the files where
> the linux developers think they obviously belong (until the next
> developers come along and change where they go :-).
>
> I think they wind up in ~/Documents, but I'm not sure.
Whenever I print to file, cups asks me where I want it.
That said, I think the default is ~/Documents/out.pdf .
The config file for cups-pdf is "/etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf", you can
configure the output file by the key "Out" in this file. The default is
"Out /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}". For myself, I'm using
"Out ${DESKTOP}/PDF", so the output goes to the direcrtory PDF on the
desktop.
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat): Kernel-3.9.6-300.fc19.x86_64
Joachim Backes <joachim.backes(a)rhrk.uni-kl.de>
https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes
11:03 p.m.
Aradenatorix Veckhom Vacelaevus <aradnix(a)gmail.com> writes:
Well I don't know what do you need exactly, but in my own
experience, the
best way for configure a document right and get it in pdf is to compose it
with LaTeX, but if you're not familiarised with it perhaps will be better
to use Scribus or if you onle need a couple of sheets, with inkscape or
gimp will be enough.
Like I said, tables that may go over several pages are a pita with
LaTeX. There are some packages to handle them, and the ones I tried
failed miserably. If that was working, the output would look a lot
better.
The files are created and maintained with perl scripts and some manual
intervention, and messing with many (i. e. 30--150) files manually in
Scribus or gimp is not an option. Inkscape is for drawings, it seems
...
--
Fedora 18
10:42 p.m.
Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:10:43 +0200
lee wrote:
> BTW, how would I control where cups puts the pdf files it creates?
Nope. Like virtually everything else, it puts the files where
the linux developers think they obviously belong (until the next
developers come along and change where they go :-).
I think they wind up in ~/Documents, but I'm not sure.
At some time (and maybe still), cups gave you a choice between sending
them by email and putting them into some directory in the users home.
None of that is what I need in this case.
--
Fedora 18
9:24 p.m.
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:10:43 +0200
lee wrote:
BTW, how would I control where cups puts the pdf files it creates?
Nope. Like virtually everything else, it puts the files where
the linux developers think they obviously belong (until the next
developers come along and change where they go :-).
I think they wind up in ~/Documents, but I'm not sure.
9:10 p.m.
Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> writes:
You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like to print
anything you like to the virtual pdf printer.
That would require me to have cups running which I otherwise don't need
at all: huge waste of resources.
BTW, how would I control where cups puts the pdf files it creates? Could
I do something like 'cat textfile.org | lpr -PPDF -o output.pdf' --- and
preferably something equivalent inside a perl script?
--
Fedora 18
6:48 p.m.
Well I don't know what do you need exactly, but in my own experience, the
best way for configure a document right and get it in pdf is to compose it
with LaTeX, but if you're not familiarised with it perhaps will be better
to use Scribus or if you onle need a couple of sheets, with inkscape or
gimp will be enough.
Good luck.
9:15 p.m.
Tim:
> As far as the original poster's question is concerned, I have
printed
> landscape documents, with text and diagrams. I used OpenOffice.org, or
> the LibreOffice version, and used its own export as PDF function.
lee:
I ruled out Libreoffice quite a while ago because it isn't up to
the
task. Not even a simple mailmerge worked without crashing LO, and the
closer I looked at it, the more bugs I found that were getting in the
way. So I went with LaTeX (and had to do without tables for that part
because LaTeX cannot reasonably handle tables that may go over several
pages and may contain tables --- which is something LO does just fine).
Well, the point was about using some program that lets you create a page
in the way that you preview it, and it will print quite close to how the
preview looked... (Most actual print-outs seem to have some
differences.) For what it's worth, I've never tried mail merge at home,
but I have tried it on Microsoft's Office (some time ago), and found
*that* buggy as hell. But I'm not surprised.
Just about all programs let you down in some area, often because what
you wanted to do was not considered important, or even known about, by
the program author. They wrote it to solve their own problems, if it's
useful for anyone else, that's just a bonus.
For anything serious and/or versatile/flexible, you can't get
around
LaTeX. Besides, things like LO come and go, and after a couple years,
you might not be able to read your documents anymore: The effort you'd
have to spend on learning how to program LO is much better spent on
learning more about LaTeX (and maybe perl) because those will very
likely still be around in another twenty years or so when LO may be long
gone.
Well, OpenOffice.org has been around for many years, somewhere around as
long as Fedora, if I recall correctly (it was StarOffice, before).
LibreOffice is newer, so I'm not that willing to predict its longevity.
Like OpenOffice.org, we could only predict the longevity of LaTex by
past experience, it *could* disappear tomorrow, if the authors give up,
or some patent arsehole goes after it. Or you could be stuck with your
distro or Operating System not supporting it.
I have been bitten by office software using proprietary data formats,
long ago, being left with mostly unusable data. It could be
hand-scraped, to try and get all the data out of the crap. But
fortunately, I really only cared about two documents on file, the rest
had been printed, and that was good enough for us. OpenOffice.org and
LibreOffice use an open document format, so future use of old data
should not be impossible.
I have looked at Tex/LaTeX in the past, and considered it akin to
learning to use an offset press, mechanically, by hand. Unless I had a
real use for it, such as providing print-ready data to an actual
printing house, I don't consider it worth my time.
DTP programs and WYSIWYG word processors and/or so-called
"office
software" like Libreoffice are totally different worlds. WYSIWYG word
processors don't even have the /concept/ of pages. Try to do something
with "a page" in one and you'll find that you need a DTP program.
Did they add a DTP module to LO now? If they did, I might even install
LO just to try out the DTP part.
I didn't say that. I mentioned two different things, in two different
paragraphs: (1) I've used OpenOffice and LibreOffice to do what the
original post talked about. And (2) using an export option in a desktop
publishing program should give you more control over layout, and maybe
more coherent placement of text.
Now, I'll emphasise that second one even more - exporting from a DTP
program *should* give you *more* control over layout.
I have used DTP software, in the past, and I'm well aware of the
differences between them. Hence what I said, earlier.
I don't agree that word processors (of the kind like in OpenOffice,
etc), don't have a concept of pages. They don't do a particularly good
job at it, but there are page-related controls and features. Some of
which sort-of work. e.g. Widow and orphan control finally being
included, a few years back. Though you still had to manually
reconfigure things so that the program couldn't stupidly put a page
break between a heading and the following content. Geez, that ought to
be preset, by default.
No matter what software you use, you're still left with having to
hand-control certain things. Like manually using no-break spaces in the
middle of phone numbers, between Mr and surname, and other similar
things, because that's just lousy presentation. And we're still left
with exceedingly inadequate keyboards for doing the most basic of
punctuation (proper dashes, proper quotes, etc).
> and maybe more coherent placement of text.
Uhm, did you ever try to coherently place text (and/or other stuff
that
goes on pages) with Scribus?
I've only vaguely played with Scribus, I found it horrible. Luckily I
don't have a real need for DTP, it's been well over twenty years since
I've used friendly, or even tolerable, DTP software.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.8.13-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon May 13 13:36:17 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.
6:33 a.m.
On 06/16/2013 12:52 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/16/13 18:29, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
>
>> You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like
> such as?
Such as lpr.
Installing cups-pdf creates a printer called Cups-PDF.
So, you would use....
lpr -P Cups-PDF whatever
And you'd get a whatever.pdf on your desktop (default behavior).
Ed,
In my /etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf, the default output is:
### Default: /var/spool/cups-pdf/${USER}
Kind regards
Joachim Backes
--
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat): Kernel-3.9.6-300.fc19.x86_64
Joachim Backes <joachim.backes(a)rhrk.uni-kl.de>
https://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~backes
5:52 a.m.
On 06/16/13 18:29, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
> You could install cups-pdf then use any tool you like
such as?
Such as lpr.
Installing cups-pdf creates a printer called Cups-PDF.
So, you would use....
lpr -P Cups-PDF whatever
And you'd get a whatever.pdf on your desktop (default behavior).
--
The only thing worse than a poorly asked question is a cryptic answer.
3980
days inactive
3982
days old
22 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Aradenatorix Veckhom Vacelaevus -
Ed Greshko -
EGO-II.1 -
Joachim Backes -
lee -
Michael Hennebry -
Rolf Turner -
Terry Polzin -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Horsley