On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Wilfred van Rooijen <wvanrooi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Given the few responses we have had so far on this topic, it seems that the > OP is right: there are many, small programs available which can do most of > what is required, but each of those programs then has specific applications > which it can or cannot do. To make an "integrated" package, one would need to > make a wrapper around all the programs, or start something new. > > In my professional life I encounter a very similar problem, namely a > multitude of (old) programs with a lot of overlap in their capabilities, but > each with specific strengths. It takes forever to learn all the differences > between the programs, and the time to make input files etc is much longer > than necessary because you need to rewrite the inputs specifically for each > program. I am trying to convince the Powers That Be that it would be better > to reprogram the bulk - but the reply I always get is: "But it works, doesn't > it?" Many share your experience and frustration. One of the reasons for proliferation of tools is that writing or modifying a tool to solve a specific problem can be done in a known time period, while searching for a appropriate existing tool is open-ended and may well end in deciding to write new code anyway. Perhaps you can remind the Powers That Be (PTB) that 1) it DOES take considerable time and effort to work out the proper role of each program, 2) PTB are responsible for "workflow continuity" planning, specifically, if you were to be incapacitated, can they afford the time it would take your replacement to learn the details of the programs? In other words, it isn't enough that the current practices "work", they need to be designed to continue to work in an uncertain future. The PTB may be concerned that a program you might write won't be useful to your replacement, but may be more supportive of participation in a larger project, e.g., to ensure the results are useful for your workflows. > Later, > Wilfred > > --- On Sat, 5/6/10, Martin Schröder <mar...@oneiros.de> wrote: > >> From: Martin Schröder <mar...@oneiros.de> >> Subject: Re: [XeTeX] Python Project: PDF Optimization >> To: "Unicode-based TeX for Mac OS X and other platforms" <xetex@tug.org> >> Date: Saturday, 5 June, 2010, 11:16 PM >> 2010/6/5 Pablo Rodríguez <oi...@web.de>: >> > pdfopt cannot linearize some PDF files >> > (http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690462#c2). >> >> qpdf can. >> >> And ps2pdf can downsample pdfs. >> >> Best >> Martin >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: >> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- George N. White III <aa...@chebucto.ns.ca> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
