Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Celejar <celejar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:52:34 -0400
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:58:49 +0100
Joe Hart <j.hart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Celejar wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:23:27 +0100
Joe Hart <j.hart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
As for acroread goes, it has turned into a huge package. The version in
my apt-cache shows 7.0.9, which is not the newest version, and it's a
whopping 22911748 bytes. I imagine that 8.0 is even bigger.
While KPDF may not be as feature rich, it does the job, and weighs in at
742592 bytes, and can embed nicely into konqueror.
Don't forget that kpdf is based on xpdf (which is what I use).
Ah the hidden dependencies. xpdf is a dummy package, that pulls in
xpdf-reader and xpdf-utils and xpdf-common. Adding those up comes quite
close to what acroread uses, so I guess my comparison is pretty useless.
Um, no.
Compressed Size: Uncompressed Size
xpdf-common 60.9 258
xpdf-reader 769 1937
xpdf-utils 1393 3543
total 2222.9 5738
acroread 22.9M 56M
So acroread uses about 10 times as much space as xpdf (and I haven't
even looked closely at acroread's dependencies vs. those of xpdf).
I guess it is almost like comparing different types of apples. The one
thing to remember though is that all of the above mentioned files are
open source except for acroread. For people that are dfsg purists, they
would balk at the idea of installing it.
I'm not a hard-line purist, but enough of one to strongly prefer the
dfsg option barring a compelling reason otherwise.
Personally, I have no problem with proprietary software, if there is no
viable alternative. For example, I use the nvidia (9755) drivers
because the open source version is pitifully slow on this system, and it
can't support beryl.
Madwifi is one of the only non-free bits I use, and it is really in the
spirit of freedom.
Celejar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: John Hasler
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- References:
- Bug in acroread?
- From: judd
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Mike McCarty
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Ron Johnson
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Florian Kulzer
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Celejar
- Re: Bug in acroread?
- From: Joe Hart
- Bug in acroread?
- Prev by Date: Re: Best File System for partitions over 600GB
- Next by Date: Re: OT: a dumb query? pls humor me
- Previous by thread: Re: Bug in acroread?
- Next by thread: Re: Bug in acroread?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|