On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Gaurav Jain wrote:
>> It's here!
>>
>> Please see
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2009/03/adobe_reader_91_for_linux_and.html
>
>
> Finally! With Tabs now.
> Even move them around, in the order you like:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Gaurav Jain wrote:
> It's here!
>
> Please see
> http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2009/03/adobe_reader_91_for_linux_and.html
Finally! With Tabs now.
Even move them around, in the order you like:
http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2009/03/sneak_preview_of_adobe_reade
It's here!
Please see
http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2009/03/adobe_reader_91_for_linux_and.html
-Gaurav
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
I see I've just finished entering 'feature request' in their site
and I saw your message.
Now something irrelevant to acroread but very relevant to other concerns
for more updtodate desktop for Solaris: Is SUN planning on releasing a
more uptodate graphical desktop for Solaris10?
I th
Michael E. Thomadakis wrote:
> Now something irrelevant to acroread but very relevant to other concerns
> for more updtodate desktop for Solaris: Is SUN planning on releasing a
> more uptodate graphical desktop for Solaris10?
Not at this time - most of the Solaris desktop work is being focused on
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I've been a "heavy" PDF user (both generating and viewign on my AMD64
>>> Solaris10 box. I think it
ma
>>>
>> kes little sense NOT to have the latest Adobe's acroread on this platform.
>>
>>> Is there any discussion about letting Adobe make it available?
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I've been a "heavy" PDF user (both generating and viewign on my AMD64
>> Solaris10 box. I think it ma
>>
> kes little sense NOT to have the latest Adobe's acroread on this platform.
>
>> Is there any discussion about letting Adobe make it available?
>>
>
>I've been a "heavy" PDF user (both generating and viewign on my AMD64
>Solaris10 box. I think it ma
kes little sense NOT to have the latest Adobe's acroread on this platform.
>
>Is there any discussion about letting Adobe make it available?
One day, but for now there's a SPARC emulator for S
Michael E. Thomadakis wrote:
> I've been a "heavy" PDF user (both generating and viewign on my AMD64
> Solaris10 box. I think it makes little sense NOT to have the latest Adobe's
> acroread on this platform.
>
> Is there any discussion about letting Adobe make it available?
"Letting Adobe mak
I've been a "heavy" PDF user (both generating and viewign on my AMD64 Solaris10
box. I think it makes little sense NOT to have the latest Adobe's acroread on
this platform.
Is there any discussion about letting Adobe make it available?
Michael
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
[ I realise this is an old thread, but it seems to reawaken about once a year
anyway :-) ]
There may just may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Have a
look at
http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2008/03/feature_requests_for_adobe_rea.html
and check out point 3. This blog entry is d
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Alan Burlison wrote:
> http://blogs.adobe.com/acroread/2007/08/launching_the_adobe_reader_on.html
>
> "It's time to get the ball rolling for the much awaited blog for Adobe
> Reader on Unix platforms. The purpose of this blog is to provide a
> platform for developers and the u
>Please calm down. Making personal attacks on execs at other companies
>isn't going to help us one jot.
It may also be very demotivating; please encourage.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Frank Hofmann wrote:
> If that's not encouraging to you, feel free to go back sulking in your
> cave ;) but personally, I take it as a great sign of things to come !
>
> Good news indeed :)
My sentiments entirely :-)
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensola
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> I find it bloody rich about Adobe crapping on about opensource - no one
> wants a damn thing opensourced of theres, we want their damn products on
> Solaris x86 - its just that damn simple. Keep the code closed, I and many
> others don't give a toss about the status of the
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
[ ... acroread/UNIX blog ... ]
> Setting up blogs mean jack if they don't actually produce some damn
> results - damn I hate it when companies think that with a blog and a
> few hollow words that they can create a so-called 'community'. Less
> blathering
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> Setting up blogs mean jack if they don't actually produce some damn
> results - damn I hate it when companies think that with a blog and a
> few hollow words that they can create a so-called 'community'. Less
> blathering more programming and compiling.
Take a deep breath
>Spewing bile on this list, or on comment sections doesn't help.
>Everyone knows that the past is the past. Let's focus on the future.
To me , the most important thing that can come out of this is
the end of endless Adobe Acrobat Reader for Solaris/x86 threads
in opensolaris-discuss :-)
Casper
On 8/23/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
>
> > *shrugs* As much as I would love to see Adobe listen, they don't listen.
> > A company run by, quite frankly, arrogant pricks, are not going to
> > listen to the lone voice in the woods - the best one can expect is
On 23/08/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is also interesting
>
> http://blogs.adobe.com/johnnyl/2007/08/innovate_or_integrate_3.html
>
> --
> Alan Burlison
> --
>
I find it bloody rich about Adobe crapping on about opensource - no one
wants a damn thing opensourced of theres,
On 23/08/07, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Its pathetic when companies like Adobe only look at
> > quarter-to-quarter
> > profits rather than long term strategy. But hey,
> > thats corporate America
> > - explains why the credit crunch was an inevitable
> > thing that
On 23/08/07, Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
>
> > *shrugs* As much as I would love to see Adobe listen, they don't listen.
> > A company run by, quite frankly, arrogant pricks, are not going to
> > listen to the lone voice in the woods - the best one can expect is
>UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Sun and other have asked (even very nicely) but
>> > Adobe has not budged.
>>
>> Aaahhh, what exactly did Adobe say? What was their reasoning? The=
>ir answer would interest me very, very much. What did they answer?
>
>I do not believe this. There
This is also interesting
http://blogs.adobe.com/johnnyl/2007/08/innovate_or_integrate_3.html
--
Alan Burlison
--
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
> *shrugs* As much as I would love to see Adobe listen, they don't listen.
> A company run by, quite frankly, arrogant pricks, are not going to
> listen to the lone voice in the woods - the best one can expect is for
> companies like Sun, Red Hat and Novell to donate money,
[...]
> Its pathetic when companies like Adobe only look at
> quarter-to-quarter
> profits rather than long term strategy. But hey,
> thats corporate America
> - explains why the credit crunch was an inevitable
> thing that was going
> to occur.
"corporate America" isn't any one thing - it's not o
> Martin Bochnig wrote:
[...]
> Beyond a few exceptions, it seems to be Adobe's
> principle to only
> support one or two main environments?
> So maybe one should believe them, that they do not
> have anything special
> against OpenSolaris_x86.
> Maybe just a lack of interest in widespread platfor
UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sun and other have asked (even very nicely) but
> > Adobe has not budged.
>
> Aaahhh, what exactly did Adobe say? What was their reasoning? Their answer
> would interest me very, very much. What did they answer?
I do not believe this. There are othe
> Because Adobe's promise of a *Portable*-DF is not
> true any longer, since
> they only support WinNT_x86 / Linux_x86 and maybe
> Mac{ppc|x86} users for
> circa 5 years now. All the other platforms are left
> out, more or less.
I wouldn't be so quick to write that. As far as I know, Adobe has r
> Sun and other have asked (even very nicely) but
> Adobe has not budged.
Aaahhh, what exactly did Adobe say? What was their reasoning? Their answer
would interest me very, very much. What did they answer?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Kaiwai Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we did _all_ do the same, Adbobe booths on big fairs will be full
> > of
> > complaining people
>
> *shrugs* As much as I would love to see Adobe listen, they don't listen.
> A company run by, quite frankly, arrogant pricks, are not going to
>
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 14:33 +0200, Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I cary this message to Adobe on every fair I attend since the last 4
> + years.
> >
> > I tell them that Adobe is not viable any more and that PDF in whole
> is no longer
> > trusworthy. This is because Adobe does
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 14:20 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem is with bringing this thread up again ... and again
> > ... and again. Talking about it here is not likely to help, because
> > we're at best the choir. It's Adobe that needs to
Martin Bochnig wrote:
> Because Adobe's promise of a *Portable*-DF is not true any longer, since
> they only support WinNT_x86 / Linux_x86 and maybe Mac{ppc|x86} users for
> circa 5 years now. All the other platforms are left out, more or less.
>
> The market will judge them, earlier or later, th
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I cary this message to Adobe on every fair I attend since the last 4+ years.
>
> I tell them that Adobe is not viable any more and that PDF in whole is no
> longer
> trusworthy. This is because Adobe does not support all platforms anymore.
>
> If we did _all_ do the same,
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is with bringing this thread up again ... and again
> ... and again. Talking about it here is not likely to help, because
> we're at best the choir. It's Adobe that needs to get the message.
I cary this message to Adobe on every fair I atte
>The problem is with bringing this thread up again ... and again
>... and again. Talking about it here is not likely to help, because
>we're at best the choir. It's Adobe that needs to get the message.
Yes but we should also realize that the majority of people on the
Net or generally any forum
Aaron Wilson writes:
> I found this thread via google. If I can do that then by chance some
Did you find the other lengthy threads about Acroread and Solaris via
google?
We've discussed this many times over. The discussion results in the
venting of many opinions, but no actual results. Some peo
I think the key thing here isn't that we don't have Adobe's reader but
that there are things lacking in the reader that we do ship (that the
Adobe reader does have).
Things I am aware of are:
* Fill in forms support
* Markup/Collab - this one got me when someone sent design review
comments for
The problem is not really just with Adobe Acrobat, it's also with the rest of
their product line. They have a great history of shooting themselves in the
foot with their own market. I have seen many, many content publishing companies
go through all sorts of grief with Adobe over software version
Hey Aaron,
Don't take it personally and remember that Sun engineers are just like
any other engineers, human. The Acrobat issue has been a source of
frustration for a long time. Different folks are just in different
phases of grief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubler-Ross_model) ;)
-Artem
___
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
I found this thread via google. If I can do that then by chance some
marketing
guy at Adobe trying to get a preliminary feel for whether there is a
demand for porting Reader on Sol x86 can too. Then again a marketing
guy might
find googling a tad too di
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 17:14 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Aaron Wilson writes:
> > Intel based IBM servers + Solaris 10 x86 = greater Solaris x86 market
> > share = greater demand for Adobe Reader on Solaris x86
> >
> > So is there any new word if Adobe is planning to release a more current
> > ve
Aaron Wilson writes:
> Intel based IBM servers + Solaris 10 x86 = greater Solaris x86 market
> share = greater demand for Adobe Reader on Solaris x86
>
> So is there any new word if Adobe is planning to release a more current
> version of Adobe Reader for Solaris x86?
Ugh. How I hope that every
All I'm saying is
Intel based IBM servers + Solaris 10 x86 = greater Solaris x86 market
share = greater demand for Adobe Reader on Solaris x86
So is there any new word if Adobe is planning to release a more current
version of Adobe Reader for Solaris x86?
Heck I'd even settle for the 7.0 ser
Aaron Wilson writes:
> Any new word on this now that IBM is selling Intel based servers with Solaris
> installed? I manage with Evince, gpdf, xpdf, etc. It would be nice for our
> Engineers to be able to use Adobe Reader 8 so they can view 3d PDFs.
Help us out here. How would the two have anyth
Any new word on this now that IBM is selling Intel based servers with Solaris
installed? I manage with Evince, gpdf, xpdf, etc. It would be nice for our
Engineers to be able to use Adobe Reader 8 so they can view 3d PDFs.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Monday 05 June 2006 06:00 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> We can always go to their offices and chain ourselves to a tree in the
> front yard. Or better yet, we chain oursleves to the CEO's car bumper.
>
> Something drastic .. because nothing else works with them.
Maybe the bomb in the car would ge
> On Saturday 03 June 2006 11:04 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 28 May 2006 06:53 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > > A company that does not create new versions of their software in more
>> > > than 6 years _is_ dead.
>> >
>> > The thing is that
On Saturday 03 June 2006 11:04 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 May 2006 06:53 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > A company that does not create new versions of their software in more
> > > than 6 years _is_ dead.
> >
> > The thing is that Adobe doe
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 May 2006 06:53 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > A company that does not create new versions of their software in more than
> > 6 years _is_ dead.
>
> The thing is that Adobe does create new versions of their software in less
> time than you stat
On Sunday 28 May 2006 06:53 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> A company that does not create new versions of their software in more than
> 6 years _is_ dead.
The thing is that Adobe does create new versions of their software in less
time than you state, just that they don't do it for Solaris on x86.
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn Weinberg wrote:
> > We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
> > team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all
> > know it's
> > just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
>
> I wo
Yes you could run the linux Acrobat binary in Brandz, but I'd advocate
using evince instead. It's opensource and from my experience, it works
better than acroread. I brought up a pdf from my ISP the other day, it
looked O.K. in acroread (sparc) but printed as all "p"s. Evince
displayed it an
Rich Teer wrote:
We have gpdf, but I don't know how "good" it is, and ISTR something called
evince
(sp?) is the way forward in that arena...
evince should be replacing gpdf in Nevada Build 41 with the GNOME 2.14
integration.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Micro
Glenn Weinberg wrote:
We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all
know it's
just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
I wouldn't be so quick to claim it is just a recompile.
I lurked
Rich Teer wrote:
We have gpdf, but I don't know how "good" it is, and ISTR something called
evince
(sp?) is the way forward in that arena...
evince should be replacing gpdf in Nevada Build 41 with the GNOME 2.14
integration.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sun Micro
Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
And with ODF and XPS (from Microsoft), is PDF relevant any longer?
You (and others suggesting this) are kidding, right?
Even *if* XPS turns out to be much more feature-compelling then PDF,
there are several too-large obstacles:
1) Even if new documents start to be pr
On Sun, 28 May 2006, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
> > We have gpdf, but I don't know how "good" it is, and ISTR something called
> > evince
> > (sp?) is the way forward in that arena...
>
> evince should be replacing gpdf in Nevada Build 41 with the GNOME 2.14
> integration.
Excell
On 26 May 2006, at 23:33, David J. Orman wrote:
Just like it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Adobe hasn't
released an Intel Mac version of CS2. No sense whatsoever.
(OT: That's mainly because Adobe were using CodeWarrior for
everything, and Universal binaries can only be compiled wi
On 5/29/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Friday 26 May 2006 02:47 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:> > I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobe
> > both. I don't understand their behavior.>> Well, do you know that Mac
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Out of curiosity where do we stand with Adobe Acrobat Reader for Solaris x86?
On a regular JDS session I can bring up Mozilla and hit some page that
suggests that I get the Adobe Acrobat plugin.
I wish we would ship a native GNOME browser (ie epiphan
Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 02:47 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobe
> > both. I don't understand their behavior.
>
> Well, do you know that Mac almost lost support for AcroRead just prior to
>
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:47 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I do this since more than three years on every fair where I see an Adobe
> both. I don't understand their behavior.
Well, do you know that Mac almost lost support for AcroRead just prior to
Apple's resurgance back to life? The beancounters
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:26 pm, Rich Teer wrote:
> Didn't Sun's Johnny Loiacino (sp?) recently join Adobe? Perhaps some
> Sun management types can persuade their old work collegue to do the
> right thing?
Do you give Sun that much credit? I mean, folks typically act as if they could
do better gi
On Friday 26 May 2006 02:27 pm, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> We need to seriously go over to the doors of Adobe and get them to play
> ball. Heck, if we have to we simply tell them to hand over the code to an
> ISV and get it ported. Then we hand it back and life goes on. How tough
> can it be?!?
Thi
> Propose the OPDF, or Open Portable Document Format and try to get the
> industry to move away from the proprietary and not at all portable
> document format.
What about using linux emul (whatever else it's being called these days)
for running the Acrobat binary unmodified?
I know the other BSD'
>Hmm, if that fails, perhaps we (Solaris users) should take the hint from
>Adobe, and boycott the use of PDF? We should rename it to NVPDF (for Not
>Very Portable...). If {Star, Open} Office supports read-only docs, maybe
>that is the way for us to go?
Propose the OPDF, or Open Portable Docume
I take your point, but this is very much a chicken-and-egg
problem. Adobe's
monopoly didn't appear overnight. Acrobat became popular as more
people used
it to distribute documents. Perhaps the same trick would work for
ODF.
You are, of course, completely correct. The same trick *might*
On Sat, 27 May 2006, David J. Orman wrote:
> Unfortunately, that really isn't a good solution. The whole point of using
> PDFs is just about anybody can read them, and they look the same on whatever
> platform. Unfortunately, that leaves Solaris x86 out in the pasture. The
> problem with going wit
On May 27, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
Hmm, if that fails, perhaps we (Solaris users) should take the hint
from
Adobe, and boycott the use of PDF? We should rename it to NVPDF
(for Not
Very Portable...). If {Star, Open} Office supports read-only docs,
maybe
that is the way for us
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Glenn Weinberg wrote:
> We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
> team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all know
> it's just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
>
> I do plan to try again with JohnnyL, a
We've tried. Multiple times. Our MDE (Market Development Engineering)
team offered to do all the work. (Not that there is much. As you all
know it's
just a recompile.) The answer has always been "no."
I do plan to try again with JohnnyL, although it's worth noting that
Acrobat is not in h
) in
mass, might make a difference. I doubt it though.
David
- Original Message -
From: Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:47 am
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Adobe Acrobat for Solaris x86
> Matt Ingenthron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Matt Ingenthron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up to
> > date software options ?
> >
> >
> I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
> x86. I suggest all interested parties
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up
>> to
>> date software options ?
>>
>>
> I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
> x86. I suggest all interested parties do so.
>
Alan Duboff blogged about this back in
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up to
> date software options ?
An older version (4?) of Acrobat Reader is available for SOlaris x86,
but you need to get it via Adobe's FTP site IIRC. I have a copy here,
but I doub
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up
>> to
>> date software options ?
>>
>>
> I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
> x86. I suggest all interested parties do so.
>
Is this the best tool that we have ?
Dennis Clarke wrote:
No Solaris x86 ? Are we able to perhaps influence this to have more up to
date software options ?
I for one have posted to their user forum, asking for a recompile to
x86. I suggest all interested parties do so.
- Matt
__
79 matches
Mail list logo
