Ted wrote:
And that, to be frank, is the fault of these two viewers, and not of the PDF format. And this (see below) is why I use Reader -- which, in my experience, simply works. If xpdf and ghostscript worked as I need them to, I'd probably use them myself. But they don't.
I'm not sure that it is the fault of the viewers. If something which is claimed as an open standard is scattered across many documents with little indication from one that others exist, and that reality differs from what is documented in subtle ways, surely it is the fault of the "standard"'s owner? To the best of my knowledge, but ghostscript and xpdf are quite happy with the really standard bit of PDF (is that PDF/X?) but some documents using incompatible Adobe extensions make them fail. One could argue that it is the fault of the Adobe generator.
That's your choice. But by limiting yourself to Free software, you have to take the downside that you're closing a lot of your options in real life.
By using non-free software, you are similarly closing a lot of options: to be able to fix the software, primarily. I think it's just a different set of closed doors.
[...] Where you hit limits is in "add-on" libraries which extend their pre-programmed functionality [...]
Actually, in R there is one subtle difference in variable scope and very little else that kills extension libraries designed for Splus.
([...] But life is short, especially real life ... ).
Indeed, so I prefer it that we don't keep reinventing the wheel every cycle, as non-free software insists that we do.
[...] The plain fact is that, still, these things do dominate the desktop world of work. If you don't go along, you're locked out.
I'm actually seeing a lot less of this now. In the few cases where we do still get sent proprietary formats, we have converters that put them in a more useful form. There's a lot to be said for now completing the transition by a stance like http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT5759283394.html
So, what you can achieve using Free Software, achieve that way. What you can only achieve using The Other, achieve that way (even with a heavy heart). And take the long view! [1]
Agreed, but I think we differ on how much energy it is worth adding to Free Software before resorting to the other. The one piece of software that is non-free is in a field that only now are we getting free replacements for, but they are incompatible with the file format and have no market share right now, so can't be used. It's also a field that I know practically nothing about and can't really assist beyond testing the software as it is produced. But I do that, because I can and because I want to see a truly Free solution.
[...]
However, the fact (on which we agree) that we don't like Adobe's proprietariness does not imply that PDF is a bad format in itself.
But which PDF is not a bad format? The idealised documented PDF which should allow easy document distribution, or the hacked-up one that you meet in reality?
[...] I will patiently wait till the skilled developers of these things get it right. Meanwhile, I'll be using Reader.
Oh, keep using the free one and sending the results/comments back to them. Without good feedback, it's very hard to develop software. As someone said (and I misquote here): "bug reports are like free software love letters. Share a little love today!"