Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Reader 7.0 Coming to Linux

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the get-er-done dept.

Linux Business 454

Sometimes_Rational writes "There is now one less thing for Windows and Mac users to point to when claiming desktop usability superiority. While not officially listed in Adobe's download page, you can get Adobe Reader 7.0 for Linux from the company's FTP server according to this article at The Inquirer , which also has a review. The upshot is that Reader 7.0 for Linux is as bloated as its Windows and Mac siblings, but it loads much faster and is more useable than version 5. I imagine that this will get loads of comments about how Reader for Linux headed downhill after version 4. Or was it 3?"

cancel ×

454 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux and Smoove B (0, Offtopic)

heauxmeaux (869966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043638)

"I will serve you on a soft, silk table-cloth that has been freshly laundered and purchased from the finest table-cloth store in all of creation.
It will be the most spectacular dinner you have ever consumed.

There will also be corn served."

Re:Linux and Smoove B (-1, Offtopic)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043649)

Thou art the coolest. I have your name tatooed 'pon my ass.

Please shut up (1)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043646)

I imagine that this will get loads of comments about how Reader for Linux headed downhill after version 4. Or was it 3?
You have no idea how little people care about your snide, inane, idiotic remarks. Please never submit a story again. Ever.

One less thing? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043857)

"There is now one less thing for Windows and Mac users to point to when claiming desktop usability superiority."

Yes, that brings the total down to a mere.....4,376 things. Progress! :)

xpdf (0, Flamebait)

SilentStrike (547628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043648)

What's wrong with xpdf? I am sure it loads a heck of a lot faster.

Re:xpdf (2, Informative)

neXus_umr (844373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043669)

Lack of useful features, it has been a while since I used it but I know the most annoying part of it was I couldn't actually select text to copy, it had a highlighting tool, but that didn't do anything useful.

Re:xpdf (2, Informative)

Narchie Troll (581273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043795)

You can select text to copy. Drag over the text and it works exactly like any other X11 application -- middle-click to paste.

Re:xpdf (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043676)

Faster .. I generally take a shower after I start the adobe reader. When I come back after dinner it has checked all the plugins. Then I go to sleep and by morning it has opened all the pages. It is not slow if you ask me.

Re:xpdf (5, Funny)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043818)

I generally take a shower after I start the adobe reader.

Man, you need a new computer! I can't even finish a coffee while the thing starts!

Re:xpdf (4, Informative)

yanestra (526590) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043678)

What's wrong with xpdf? I am sure it loads a heck of a lot faster.
You still can't read each and every PDF document with xpdf, especially DRM protected files are impossible to view...

Re:xpdf (1)

Are you a NIGGER (850302) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043727)

As if anyone around here ever let some stupid DRM get in their way. Information wants to be free.

Re:xpdf (5, Funny)

arose (644256) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043731)

That's a feature...

Re:xpdf (1)

andreyw (798182) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043746)

Ummm recompile xpdf to get rid of that "feature," then.

Re:xpdf (4, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043767)

You still can't read each and every PDF document with xpdf, especially DRM protected files are impossible to view...

You also can't fill out fillable PDFs with anything except acroread

Re:xpdf (1)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043832)

You also can't fill out fillable PDFs with anything except acroread

But you can't save them to disc once you fill them with acroread! You need a $500 fix from Adobe to be able to do that - and if you cna't save it to disk, why bother using it?

Re:xpdf (1)

tomRakewell (412572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043836)

You can't even print multiple copies of a document using xpdf/gpdf.

Re:xpdf (2, Informative)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043853)

You can't even print multiple copies of a document using xpdf/gpdf.

I don't know about gpdf (don't use it), but in xpdf, when you hit the print button, in the "Print with command box", just add a '-#' (without quotes) followed by the number of copies you want. It is a standard option to the lpr command and CUPS obeys it as well.

Re:xpdf (1)

tomRakewell (412572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043912)

I don't know about gpdf (don't use it), but in xpdf, when you hit the print button, in the "Print with command box", just add a '-#' (without quotes) followed by the number of copies you want. It is a standard option to the lpr command and CUPS obeys it as well.

I just tried xpdf and you are right. I shouldn't have lumped xpdf in with gpdf, sorry. If gpdf has a way to print multiple copies, they have sure hidden it well.

Re:xpdf (4, Interesting)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043730)

I bought some tickets [ticketek.com.au] to a sporting event. XPDF screwed up the barcode on them. Good job I noticed and used Adobe's reader to print them otherwise I (and the three friends I also got tickets for) would have got to the venue and been unable to get through the turnstiles.....

Re:xpdf (4, Informative)

Compholio (770966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043734)

What's wrong with xpdf? I am sure it loads a heck of a lot faster.

Adobe's reader is more compatible and (at least for me) loads just as fast as xpdf. I was actually surprised it loaded so fast, though it's not compatible with SELinux - you need to change the context on the *.api plugin files and the ADMPlugin.apl file using "chcon -t shlib_t file_to_change_context" before you can run the reader.

kpdf rocks (5, Informative)

nileshbansal (665019) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043756)

Try kpdf 0.4 (one that comes with KDE 3.4)? This is what a pdf viewer should look like. 1. Type ahead search. 2. Easy copy-paste. With acrobat reader it is not possible to select/copy a paragraph in 2 column format document, but with kpdf one can easily do that. 3. Can watch for changes in the viewed file and update the view accordingly. 4. Presentation mode. 5. KDE app. Native look and feel. Can use kio_slaves. 6. No bloat. Open source.

Re:xpdf (1)

isometrick (817436) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043757)

I've got a professor that DRMs (I assume that's what it is, xpdf asks for a password even when I'm just reading) his PDFs, so every time I want to view an updated schedule or grades I have to switch to a windows box.

Now maybe I don't have to!

Re:xpdf (4, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043849)

The better solution is to switch or upgrade professors. I know one professor that would return all the MS Word .doc files back to the sender and ask them to submit in an industry standard format, he never said what those are, we assumed pdf and ps. And it is not because he couldn't view them, he could, he just wanted to "teach us a lesson"

Re:xpdf (1)

isometrick (817436) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043918)

I really would (for many reasons), but that would require a full university upgrade. He's the only professor for this course, and it is a major requirement. :)

Re:xpdf (1)

Daedalus_ (38808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043844)

Nothing's wrong with xpdf, but it's nice to see companies providing native versions of popular apps.

Re:xpdf (3, Informative)

nigham (792777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043936)

Please... you can't even scroll across pages with the direction keys in xpdf! its a page reader, not a document reader

Definition of bloat? (1)

OccidentalSlashy (809265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043653)

If it loads faster than the last version, isn't it by definition not bloatware? Just asking.

I'll get it now (4, Informative)

jlrowe (69115) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043656)

Bloat or not, it is still the best reader for Adobe Acrobat files. And I need to do some of those added features like 'fill in forms', password protected forms, etc.

For instance, my Bank Statements have been coming in password protected files for years now. So I very much welcome this new product.

Re:I'll get it now (5, Informative)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043815)

Bloat or not, it is still the best reader for Adobe Acrobat files.

It's only bloated if you have a problem with sacrificing ~100 MB of hard drive space. Seriously who worries about that on a reasonably modern desktop? I just bought to 160 GB drives the other day for US$ 80 each. Drive space is not a problem.

I have been using the new version for a week and much more impressed with it than I was with version 5.

Here are the things I like:

  • Uses GTK. I am not GTK fanboy (I prefer GNUStep), but at least it is better than that awful interface the previous versions had.
  • Mozilla plugin that works just like it does on the popular legacy operating system still floating around out there.
  • It is basically a tar file, no hidden toolbars to install for you.
  • Way snappier than the previous version.
  • No more having to mess with numlock to get pgup/pgdn working.
  • Has preference settings for a MUA a web browser and several other apps you can launch for various functions (e.g., I open a PDF in Firefox and click the email button to see it open a new compose window in Thunderbird with the PDF I am viewing in Firefox already attached. Sweet!)

Things I don't like:

  • The went to that blasted MDI. I want every flipping document to open in its own window. Is that so hard? Is it too much to ask?
  • The OK button in all the dialogs is squished, quite annoying.
  • You must manually include it in your menu. It should at least hit the majors (GNOME, KDE).

Re:I'll get it now (4, Interesting)

innosent (618233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043886)

Seriously who worries about that on a reasonably modern desktop?

Klaus Knopper (Knoppix), or any other Live-CD maintainer, and me (have 50+ Knoppix-based kiosk/office systems to maintain, and like being able to keep the system images under 350MB compressed [current setup is about 320MB compressed, 1.1GB uncompressed, and contains both a kiosk mode and a normal OpenOffice/FireFox/KDE/Evolution mode], plus all of the network and printer drivers from Knoppix). Small but useful components means that a system can be booted from the network and setup with the latest image in 20 minutes. We use Acrobat 4, since it's reasonably current for our uses, loads quickly on older hardware, and keeps the image size down. As I mentioned in another thread, if I can read the splash screen, it's too damn slow.

Now (2, Funny)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043661)

Linux users can endure the eternal system lag that is .pdf

I'd rather use xpdf (4, Informative)

PissingInTheWind (573929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043665)

I prefer xpdf because it loads much faster, and you can hit the 'r'eload button when you update your document. It's quite useful when you're working with LaTeX.

The "only" drawback I see is that sometimes when reading certain articles I get some really ugly, pixelated fonts.

I suppose there might be a fix around for that? Anyone?

Re:I'd rather use xpdf (4, Informative)

mz001b (122709) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043686)

The "only" drawback I see is that sometimes when reading certain articles I get some really ugly, pixelated fonts.

when doing dvips using -Ppdf or -Pcmz (if you are using the Computer Modern fonts, to embed outlines in the ps file instead of low resolution bitmaps -- it makes the resulting PDF (from ps2pdf) much better.

Re:I'd rather use xpdf (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043712)

I think there is some useful information in your post, but your grammar makes it really hard to figure out what you're saying.

Would you consider re-posting something a little more coherent?

Re:I'd rather use xpdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043932)

I understood him perfectly. Maybe you don't need to know this?

Re:I'd rather use xpdf (1)

Dagrush (723402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043687)

I suppose there might be a fix around for that? Anyone?

Yeah, putting more time and work into the xpdf code.

Re:I'd rather use xpdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043710)

I think this happens when you make a dvi file and then convert it with "dvipdf". FYI, I think the new latex distribtions finally started providing "dvipdfm" which I think works wonders. I've never run into a bad pdf file when converting dvi's to pdfs with dvipdfm.

Another way would be to use pdftex... if that's what you prefer. I personally don't prefer it. I think in part because a lot of my older documents still use the epsfig package - and pdftex doesn't seem to play well with that. I think it prefers the images to actually be pdfs and then use \includegraphics, or something.

It's just a matter of preference.

Or just use GhostScript (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043668)

Hmmmm, bloated Adobe reader, or Ghostscript [google.com] that let's me make a pdf?

not so great (0)

promantek (866291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043670)

adobe has the poorest support for it's own PDF format.

After using Preview in OSX, nothing compares. On my windows boxes I regularly kill Adobe because it's so slow, although the author did say this one is faster...

Unless OSX's Preview has been ported to linux, then this a big *yawn*

Direct Link (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043673)

Gone limp using A.R. (2, Funny)

mas5353 (870037) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043775)

"For the impatent"

<looking at his crotch>

Hey, who told you?

BTW, learn to spell!

I'm not really an impotent but I play one on t.v... (you may have seen my work in some Vi4g.r4 commercials)

All of my youth, and the envigorating sex life I could have had, was spent on waiting for various .pdf's to load with Adobe software and plugins.

Re: Direct Link (2, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043953)


For Gent00zers, it has ~86 in portage for about a week.

Haven't tried it.

Useful combination = Acrobat + OO (4, Insightful)

Johann (4817) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043675)

Since I work with many people who *still* have not switched to Open Office, I tend to export my OO files into PDF. At least I preserve my formatting much better than if I save as MS Office formats [filtering is better in OO 2.x I'm told].

PDF is also useful for sending read-only stuff like contracts or proposals - if you're the consultant types.

Now that Adobe updated Acrobat, maybe some of the more recent PDFs will be more renderable in Linux.

Re:Useful combination = Acrobat + OO (1)

updatelee (244571) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043741)

I agree, OpenOffice saves MSOffice files so badly I dont even know why its an option. I tried OpenOffice for a few weeks, I couldnt beleive the MSOffice files it was producing, formatting was completly out to lunch, often the file wasnt even legible in MSOffice.

I prefer OSS if avalible and it works, but Im not willing to use it if it doesnt work ...

I use Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird daily, love em. they work, very well. OpenOffice, doesnt.

Re:Useful combination = Acrobat + OO (1)

GeorgeMcBay (106610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043789)

PDF is a great format, but I've never had anything but trouble with Acrobat Reader after version 5. It used to be a pretty decent piece of software, but now I dread the times I accidentally click a PDF link in my web browser and then have to wait 20-30 seconds on my super high speed computer for the Acrobat Reader to stop maxing my CPU and locking up all my browser windows.


Unfortunately enough people use newer features in PDF files that I can't stick with the lower version....


Re:Useful combination = Acrobat + OO (-1, Troll)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043850)

You should switch to MS Word. That's the industry standard and nearly everybody uses it, so you won't have to bother with obscure-ish file formats.

It's time (2, Insightful)

mfos.org (471768) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043682)

Thank god. I was just about to send them an e-mail, I get encrypted PDFs all the time, and I don't like having to bust out my laptop or VMWare. Glad they finally got with the pogram

Re:It's time (5, Funny)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043701)

Thank god. I was just about to send them an e-mail

Yes, tragedy was definitely averted.

*grin*

Who uses Adobe Reader on a Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043684)

Preview.app, in 10.3 and up is much much better then A. Reader 7.

It's FASTER, makes very pretty thumbnails of each page... Why would anyone use Adobe Reader 7.

Desktop superiority? (4, Funny)

node 3 (115640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043690)

Believe me, we most certainly don't point to Acrobat Reader when pointing out "desktop superiority".

In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the other way around!

Nice (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043691)

Nice to see that Adobe is putting some effort into Linux and I'm sure the Adobe reader provides things open source readers don't yet support. Namely I think there is currently no OS reader that supports filling out forms.

That said, for all my needs, the new OS pdf readers are good enough. They used to suck (kpdf and gpdf were a joke and xpdf was simply ugly), but the new kpdf is simply awesome and the same goes for evince.

Good job, Adobe. (3, Interesting)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043693)

I think it's about time Adobe starts offering products on Linux... I don't care if this is a bloated peace of junk... I'm using Mac OS X since last year, and there's no problem reading PDFs or PS files there. But Linux is cool for all my server crap, and with more support coming its way, that's fresh and dope.

Now if only they'll port Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, InDesign, and all their other stuff... In other words, gimme the finger, I want the whole hand.

Finally! (4, Informative)

mfago (514801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043694)

Acroread renders better than xpdf, and has much better document navigation features to boot.

Yes, xpdf is somewhat faster (although acroread7 feels faster to me than crappy old 5.x).

Good thing everyone can have both!

Anyone had it crash yet? Acroread 5.0.1 thru 5.0.6 (or so) crashed regularly for me...

I doubt this will make a big diffrence (0, Troll)

I kan Spl (614759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043695)

Unless they release the source code under some OSS friendly license I doubt this will make a big diffrence. We already have real player for linux, but from what I see at my univ, most people are using mplayer or kaffeine.

If they release it under BSD or GPL, then I'm interested.

Re:I doubt this will make a big diffrence (1)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043877)

We already have real player for linux, but from what I see at my univ, most people are using mplayer or kaffeine.

Real player is a worthless chunk of malware on any OS. I wouldn't touch the stinker, Windows or linux. If a site has no video other than .rm, too bad, go to next site!

If they release it under BSD or GPL, then I'm interested.

Who cares? Are you, like, going to develop it, or just use it? There are open source pdf readers already. If you want to work on a pdf reader, just fout your efforts into xpdf or kpdf, no?

Useful for the fringe cases (2, Interesting)

d-rock (113041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043697)

I mostly use gv or gpdf because they're fast and simple for most PDFs. I have to admit, though, that it's nice to have an updated viewer for when I need to do things like deal with forms or some of the other esoteric functions of PDF.

Derek

alright! (0, Redundant)

metricmusic (766303) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043700)

yes, but does it run in....

hello? is this on?

Re:alright! (1)

Dagrush (723402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043717)

I think you wanted to say:
yes, but does it run in GNU/Hurd?

Awesome... but (1)

wcitech (798381) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043704)

Lets hope they don't figure out a way to integrate annoying toolbars (see earlier article about MSIE Toolbar Integration)

Reader Extensions (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043707)

One really cool thing about the 7.0 version of Adobe Readers is that they can be extended with Adobe LiveCycle Reader Extensions [adobe.com] to add features that are normally only available when you buy Adobe Acrobat. Of course, Reader Extensions costs something. But what's great is that given the right "pixie dust", Linux is no longer a platform for just viewing PDFs, but it can do PDF Collaboration and forms routing just like its Windows and Macintosh counterparts.

Re:Reader Extensions (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043732)

That's REALLY great! Wait...actually no it's not, who the hell gives a damn?

You're probably an Adobe employee astroturfing.

Let me tell you, we need a simple reader without bloat and all the shit that keeps getting added. Every version keeps getting worse. Way to go.

Offtopic, but interesting... (1)

NickHydroxide (870424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043715)

Heh, I wonder if recent history (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/08/23412 13&tid=172&tid=146 [slashdot.org] ) is anything to go by. It's still data freely available on the Internet but with no explicit authorisation to download. Kinda makes you think, no?

Re:Offtopic, but interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043919)

No. It doesn't, actually, because theres nothing negative that can happen to me for downloading it.

gpdf rules (3, Interesting)

dcstimm (556797) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043721)

I use gpdf, it loads all pdfs fine for me, and it intergrates nicely into gnome and mozilla, the only thing it has ever rendered incorrectly was that giant PDF from Mozilla.org when they put the ad in the new york times, the names showed up but the background firefox logo did not show up, So I launched it on my mac and preview opened it with no problems except it took 5 times longer than gpdf, hopefully gpdf fixes that small bug. otherwise its been great

Re:gpdf rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043790)

Hey, I was looking through the task list on my Windows mainframe. I looked under 'g', and there was the program I had been suspecting all along,

GPFD

Re:gpdf rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043824)

The General Protection Fault Daemon?

Re:gpdf rules (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043838)

Try evince. It's a new document viewer for Gnome, it also integrates nicely into the enviroment, it's fast and it can do a lot more than gpdf can do, for example you can now finally search the document or copy and paste parts of it.

http://www.gnome.org/projects/evince/

I'm glad that the new Acrobat has come. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043735)

The old one sure feels old. Yet its better than any other PDF program for its ability to find and copy text.

I can't wait for Ubuntu to add it to the repos...

gv anyone? (1)

Plac3bo (651890) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043736)

I don't get a ton of PDF documents (mostly MS Office documents from the executive types at work...grrr), but I personally like gv. It has a nice, easy, clean interface and loads quickly.

What are it's drawbacks that make Adobe's Reader so much better?

works well (4, Informative)

darthpenguin (206566) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043739)

I've been using this for several days under slackware, and I must say I'm impressed. It loads quickly enough (though not as fast as xpdf), but it fits right into my desktop as far as widgets go, and the rendering looks great! The printing support also work fine with the KDE system (you just tell it to print to "kprinter"), and so far I haven't experienced the weird orientation issues I sometimes get with landscape-oriented documents printing improperly.

As far as installation goes, I just used rpm2tgz to convert the downloaded rpm into a slackpack then used installpkg. I had to create a symlink to the executable, which was /usr/local/Adobe/Acrobat7.0/bin/acroread.

My biggest gripe so far is the annoying, but thankfully small, banner add in the top right corner advertising random Adobe services, but it's not *too* intrusive. Here is a screenshot [mdek.net] .

Re:works well (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043933)

There's a windows program for the windows reader that lets you turn off all kinds of goodies, (like the plugins that make it slower than xpdf and that annoying advertisement). Now all we need is a linux version of that tool.

Evince+Poppler - free / usable rendering. (5, Informative)

snickell (860872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043740)

Or you could use a PDF/PS viewer that's nicely integrated with your desktop, and has a sane feature-set and good usability. On GNOME we've got Evince [gnome.org] , and on KDE there's KPDF. Evince (and now KPDF, I believe) is backed by the Freedesktop.org Poppler library (which is in turn backed by Cairo which can use hardware acceleration for faster PDF rendering). Kristian (as referenced earlier today on slashdot re: wobbly windows) is hard at work on adding nice features needed for desktop apps. Poppler is a fork from the Xpdf rendering code (with the maintainer's blessing, since he was using his own rendering infrastructure and didn't want to mix two backends into Xpdf).

We've been doing a lot of experimenting with making the "core features" of Evince better for on-screen reading, rather than working on the sort of extra packed in features in Acrobat. For example, when you press page down, evince will slightly darken the area on the screen where your page was as it smooth scrolls. That lets your eye track its position much easier, so once the scroll is over you just keep reading without a visual "seek". KPDF is cool too, so either way you swing you've got a good choice.

Acroread 7.0 is using GTK+ for its widgets, but this hardly makes it have a native "feel". Use it for a minute and its pretty clear its a cross-platform app port.

Re:Evince+Poppler - free / usable rendering. (4, Informative)

snickell (860872) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043759)

For those complaining about the sluggishness of Xpdf at rendering pages, we're working on that. We consider that the largest usability problem with Poppler based viewers right now (Evince & XPDF). We've already made the thumbnailer code on the left substantially faster and are looking at doing things like pre-emptively rendering pages as you scroll toward them so there's no lag (in addition to improving the raw pages/sec rendering speed).

Re:Evince+Poppler - free / usable rendering. (1)

StarHeart (27290) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043786)

Yeah, evince rocks. It is finally a true xpdf replacement. The one feature that isn't in gpdf, but is in xpdf is text search. evince has text search. gpdf also in my experience was far from stable.

Acrobat 4! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043742)

Seriously, 4 is the best if you're just looking to open up .pdf files and print them.

Get it at oldversion.com [oldversion.com]

Re:Acrobat 4! (2, Insightful)

innosent (618233) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043822)

No, 3 takes it, remember when the splash screen for startup just flashed up for a split second, not even long enough to read "Adobe"? On your 486? I still don't get the point in adding "features" to a product if it means that 99.9% of the things you do with the product take twice as long.

Gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043743)

There has been a gentoo ebuild for this for a week or longer now, I'm surprised this showed up now.

How old is this?? (1)

ccharles (799761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043753)

How old is this news? This was announced months ago, and I've been running v7 on my Gentoo box for two weeks...

Re:How old is this?? (1)

Bungopolis (763083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043797)

It's not old news at all. Actually it's premature news.... Reader 7 hasn't been released for Linux yet, and you are running the beta version (so am I), which is what is available on their FTP server.

Re:How old is this?? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043947)

Isn't running gentoo like running beta anyways? (i am in gentoo, i should mention)

Half the crap i use on my windows station happens to be beta/alpha as well. Nothing wrong with using betas.

But will it be x86_64? (1)

bigt_littleodd (594513) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043755)

I've got an Athlon 64, Suse 9.2 in x86_64, and it's a pain because a lot of stuff won't run in x86_64 yet.

It would really suck if Reader 7 is only 32-bit compatible.

Re:But will it be x86_64? (3, Informative)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043825)

AFAIK it is 32 bit, but if you have 32-compat libraries installed, it will just run in 32 bit mode automatically.

This is unlike flash, since it does not have its own process, it needs that the parent application (firefox) runs in 32-bit mode as well.

However, if you are really desparate for a 32 bit system, but have a 64 bit system, you should set up a 32-bit chroot. It wastes disk space -- but can be highly useful.

ibm aix and sun solaris (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043760)

The author of the article is on crack, calling aix and solaris "niche" operating system.

vs xpdf (2, Interesting)

aasmodeus (862363) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043777)

So far I've had problems printing most PDF's to an HP LJ4Si printer, but when I upgraded to 7, those problems went away. Yes, I confirmed that running xpdf or acroread 5 again still showed the same problems (blinking light showing job in printer, stops blinking after several seconds, no typical startup sounds).

FWIW, YMMV.

proprietary software for the free world is no gift (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043778)

I don't give a fuck about this proprietary bullshit from the monster software hoarders adobe.

you can get acrobat reader 7 to load fast (5, Informative)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043788)

on windows as well, you just need to go in the installation directory, then in the Plugins subdirectory and remove EVERYTHING BUT these 3 files (just move them somewhere else so you can put them back if you have a problem)

EWH32.api
Search5.api
Search.api

after I did that and disabled the splash screen Acrobat reader 7 loads up nearly instantaneously on XP. I'm not taking credit for this, I found this tip somewhere I can't quite remember right now and it surely works!

Re:you can get acrobat reader 7 to load fast (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043921)

Put them in a directory called "Optional" and the program loads them when they are required. No clue why this isn't default behavior for some of the more obscure plugins.

(null) (-1, Offtopic)

cyko500 (315074) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043793)

I am a but.

Old News, Old News (2, Informative)

Ditaki (859078) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043800)

This has been on the front page of http://www.fedoraforum.org/ [fedoraforum.org] FedoraForum.org[FedoraF orum.org] for a while now. Kinda late news, as I've been using it for a while now.

Re:Old News, Old News (1)

SILIZIUMM (241333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043948)

Same here, I saw an article on Heise.de [heise.de] though. Using it since the 14, works great !

"Coming to Linux..." (4, Interesting)

generationxyu (630468) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043801)

No, they mean, "Coming to Linux/x86."

There's a difference. Even Opera (who I hold in high regard for their cross-platformness) doesn't have the latest versions available for all platforms. I understand not updating the BeOS port, but really... OS/2 is on Opera 5? I have professors who still use OS/2 as their primary desktop OS!

Bloat would be okay if... (5, Insightful)

tomRakewell (412572) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043823)

I could deal with the bloat if the damn thing is more stable than Acrobat 5. It is one of the only closed-source desktop apps I use regularly in running my business. (The only reason I use it over xpdf or gpdf is because Acrobat allows me to print multiple copies of documents, where gpdf/xpdf do not! Does nobody print multiple copies of PDFs but me?)

It also happens to be the one app that routinely destroys the desktop. I often have to ssh into the desktop boxes because Acrobat has seized all input and won't let go. My employees frequently abandon virtual desktops because the Acrobat splash screen won't go away and they don't know how to kill it. (Have to show them how to use xkill I guess).

Acrobat 5 doesn't integrate well with the Linux desktop. It has a rude habit of grabbing keyboard input at unexpected times -- I have trouble switching virtual desktops using certain window managers because Acrobat always receives the F1 key, not the window manager.

The Acrobat 5 Firefox plugin is nasty -- if you drag your mouse pointer into the main window while the Acrobat plugin is running, it seizes all keyboard input; you can't even type anything into the location bar until you drag the mouse pointer back up to the Firefox menu bar.

While writing this message I launched Acrobat Reader 5 to remind myself of what the problems were, and within two minutes it locked up and I had to kill the beast by remotely logging in from another computer.

So if Acrobat 7 solves any of these problems, I'll probably use it gladly, bloat and all. Come on, Adobe! I swear that if you wrote quality Linux desktop apps, people would use them. They might even *pay for them* (ahem, Photoshop... ahem, Illustrator).

Adobe Reader for Linux is also accessible! (4, Interesting)

peterkorn (712751) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043828)

I just returned from the CSUN Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilities [csun.edu] where Pete DeVasto of Adobe was demoing a beta build of Adobe Reader for Linux using the Gnopernicus screen reader [www.baum.ro] . Speech output, Braille output, working navigation of the PDF documents he showed (including forms), all accessible to him on the Sun Opteron box he was using, running the forthcoming edition of Sun's Java Desktop System Release 3 (GNOME 2.6 with GNOME 2.8 accessibility bits). Even as someone very much involved in this work (I'm Sun's Accessibility Architect), it was really cool to see this, and to see the reactions from folks at the conference to what Adobe was showing.

Slashdot getting slow? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043831)

I have the 7.0 version installed on my Linux box on the 15th of march. It is version 7.0.0 03/11/2005

The first place it came out was on the Dutch adobe site, because Dutch people needed it to fill out their taxes if they wanted to do it via electronic way. (I think)

The first time I saw it was on the 14th: on google [google.com]

I would have thought that all people already had downloaded it.

Re: Slashdot getting slow? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043957)


No, you just missed the first two stories on it.

3D feature... (0, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043862)

I recently had a job interview at Adobe. One of the new features is the ability to embed a 3D object into the pdf document. You can click on the 3D object and view it from all sides. It's primary aimed at the CAD/CAM market where having a 3D object in the technical specs makes sense. Unfortunatley, I didn't get the job. :(

YOU FAIL IdT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043872)

is dying.Things Don't want to feel work that you already dead. It is haplees *BSD was after a long to be about doing TO USE THE GNAA BSD sux0rs. What going to continue, Theorists - Duty to be a big Includes where you continues toChew [tux.org]? Are you = 36400 FreeBSD happen. 'At least kill myself like is dying.Things reasons why anyone but I'd rather hear The reaper In a Come on baby...and during play, this Or m7islead the Fortunately, Linux reciprocating already dead. It is DOG THAT IT IS. IT clear she couldn't

this is the same Adobe that ... (3, Interesting)

bdbafh (851601) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043891)

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_skl yarov_faq.html this is the same Adobe that went after Dmitri Sklyarov. what has changed in their org, board of directors, corporate mindset that should convince me to ever forgive them? Yep - I didn't think so. Lets have a little contest as to how large of objects we can shove up the collective rectum of Adobe. -me

Wow! (1)

Jafar00 (673457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12043903)

Well done Adobe. Acroread on Linux loads up almost instantly and displays even large documents in rapid fashion. Unlike the windows version which is a bit slow ;)
It's a fine piece of software worthy of much praise from all linix users! :) Thanks guys.

Linux on PPC support. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12043955)

I suppose I'm glad they have a linux version at all.

That said, if it were an open source project I would be able to get a linux PPC version. But alas, I am going to keep using xpdf for some time to come.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?