zfs discuss - Jul 2008 - Formatting Problem of ZFS Adm Guide (pdf)

ZFS Administration Guide (in PDF format) does not look very professional (at
least on Evince/OS2008.05).  Please see attached screenshot.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zfs_adm_pdf.png
Type: image/png
Size: 173631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080720/4a63d530/attachment.png>

> ZFS Administration Guide (in PDF format) does not
> look very professional (at least on
> Evince/OS2008.05).  Please see attached screenshot.
Looks like this is a display problem.  It seems that certain fonts (monospace
fonts) were not displayed by the version of Evince included in OS 2008.05. 
Please ignore this thread.  I am re-posting it in the Indiana forum.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Evince likes to fuzz a number of PDFs. I too can''t seem to nail the
problems, but it seems that a number of PDFs from SUN have this problem (very
wrong character spacing), and they all have been generated using FrameMaker.
PDFs generated using TeX/LaTeX are *usually* ok.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> Evince likes to fuzz a number of PDFs. I too can''t seem to nail
the problems, but it seems that a number of PDFs from SUN have this problem
(very wrong character spacing), and they all have been generated using
FrameMaker. PDFs generated using TeX/LaTeX are *usually* ok.
>   
Welcome to font hell :-(.  For many years, Sun documentation was written
in the Palatino font, which is (or was?) not freely available. I believe 
you
will find that the latest font headaches are due to transitions of 
fonts, not
the applications that use them.
 -- richard

> Welcome to font hell :-(.  For many years, Sun
> documentation was written
> in the Palatino font, which is (or was?) not freely
> available. I believe 
Umm No. PDF supports font embedding. This is how so many PDFs are out there
(company brochures, fliers etc) with commercial fonts and they look just right.
I checked one of the PDFs and it does have all the fonts (including platino and
helvetica) embedded as Type 1 font.

 It may have something to do with Type1 font or something else that FrameMaker
is generating that evince is choking on because the PDFs look fine with Adobe
Reader 8 (under wine-1.1), Foxit Reader (wine 1.1) & xpdf (3.02 from
blastwave). Even ghostscript renders them ok.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

For the record, the source of the ZFS Admin Guide is created with
a SGML editor that is not Framemaker. I agree that the evince PDF
display problems are with the font changes only.

Cindy
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
>>Welcome to font hell :-(.  For many years, Sun
>>documentation was written
>>in the Palatino font, which is (or was?) not freely
>>available. I believe 
> 
> 
> Umm No. PDF supports font embedding. This is how so many PDFs are out there
(company brochures, fliers etc) with commercial fonts and they look just right.
I checked one of the PDFs and it does have all the fonts (including platino and
helvetica) embedded as Type 1 font.
> 
>  It may have something to do with Type1 font or something else that
FrameMaker is generating that evince is choking on because the PDFs look fine
with Adobe Reader 8 (under wine-1.1), Foxit Reader (wine 1.1) & xpdf (3.02
from blastwave). Even ghostscript renders them ok.
>  
>  
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
>> Welcome to font hell :-(.  For many years, Sun
>> documentation was written
>> in the Palatino font, which is (or was?) not freely
>> available. I believe 
>>     
>
> Umm No. PDF supports font embedding. This is how so many PDFs are out there
(company brochures, fliers etc) with commercial fonts and they look just right.
I checked one of the PDFs and it does have all the fonts (including platino and
helvetica) embedded as Type 1 font.
>   
Yes, but the current font woes are in the Xserver fonts.  See the
various discussions on indiana-discuss and desktop-discuss.
 -- richard

Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 21-Jul-08, at 2:50 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
>>> Evince likes to fuzz a number of PDFs. I too can''t seem to
nail the
>>> problems, but it seems that a number of PDFs from SUN have this 
>>> problem (very wrong character spacing), and they all have been 
>>> generated using FrameMaker. PDFs generated using TeX/LaTeX are 
>>> *usually* ok.
>>>
>>
>> Welcome to font hell :-(.  For many years, Sun documentation was
written
>> in the Palatino font, which is (or was?) not freely available.
>
> I have to correct you here - Palatino was a built-in font of the Apple 
> LaserWriter Plus (1986), and one of the very first Adobe Font packages 
> for PostScript, which means it has been almost as "freely
available"
> for printing and screen rendering as Times New Roman. In particular, 
> it has been a part of the core Macintosh screen fonts since System 7, 
> if not earlier (TrueType with identical metrics to the PostScript 
> font). FrameMaker''s choice of PostScript Palatino was natural
during
> the 1990s since Sun could be assured it was available to all 
> PostScript laser printers and imagesetters. (Apple''s documentation
of
> the period also used Palatino and ITC Avant Garde).
IANAL, but I think you will find that the hardware vendors have paid
a license fee.
    http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/pdfs/FontFAQ.pdf

Currently, some of the licensing is undergoing changes.  I''m not
involved in that projects, but you might get some sense of the
complexity with this thread:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/desktop-discuss/2008-February/012552.html

If you thought open source software was a legal minefield, fonts are
even more Byzantine...
 -- richard

As I mentioned before, the fonts are undergoing various transitions.
There are transitions on many fronts, including font licensing and the
subsequent substitutions.  I''d like to say everything will be settled
soon, but I don''t think we''ll ever see everything settled :-(

There is nothing wrong with the PDFs.  There is something wrong
with the way some fonts are displayed, including applications that
rely on the Xserver for font rendering (eg. evince).

What you want is the fix to CR6723656, scheduled for b95, which
involves updating the Freetype package to version 2.3.7. 
OpenSolaris 2008.05 (based on b85)  has version 2.3.5 and the
irritating bug was introduced with 2.3.6 in b93.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6723656
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6712820
 -- richard

> For the record, the source of the ZFS Admin Guide is
> created with
> a SGML editor that is not Framemaker. I agree that
> the evince PDF
> display problems are with the font changes only.
> 
> Cindy
Perhaps some considerations should be given to create those documents with
OpenOffice.org or StarOffice/StarSuite.

Starting version 9, StarOffice/StarSuite will have the ability to produce pdf
files in pdf/odf hybrid format.  This is another strong ncentive to use
StarOffice/StarSuite.  But most importantly, thanks to Sun''s unwavering
support, these office suites have become some of the most powerful tools for
generating complicated documents. :-)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>
> Perhaps some considerations should be given to create those 
> documents with OpenOffice.org or StarOffice/StarSuite.
I would encourage Sun to continue using the system which has already 
been working for so many years so that it can focus on creating more 
good documentation with less cut-and-paste and more clarity.

The complaints seem to be about flaws in the viewer programs rather 
than in the actual PDF.

Bob
=====================================Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

I doubt so. Star/OpenOffice are word processors... and like Word they are not
suitable for typesetting documents.

SGML, FrameMaker & TeX/LateX are the only ones capable of doing that.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

> I doubt so. Star/OpenOffice are word processors...
> and like Word they are not suitable for typesetting
> documents.
> 
> SGML, FrameMaker & TeX/LateX are the only ones
> capable of doing that.
This was pretty much true about a year ago.  However, after version 2.3, which
adds the kerning feature, OpenOffice.org can produce very professionally looking
documents.

All of the OOo User Guides, which are every bit as complex as if not more so
than our own user guides, are now "self-generated".  Solveig Haugland,
a highly respected OpenOffice.org consultant, published her book
"OpenOffice.org 2 Guidebook" (a 527-page book complete with drawings,
table of contents, multi-column index, etc.) entirely on OOo.

Another key consideration, in addition to perhaps a desire to support our sister
product, is that the documents so generated are guaranteed to be displayable on
the OS they are intended to serve.  This is a pretty important consideration
IMO.  :-)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if it''s razor-sharp,
but that doesn''t make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.

  I love star office, and use it every day, but my publisher uses
Frame, so that''s what I use for books.

--dave

W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>>I doubt so. Star/OpenOffice are word processors...
>>and like Word they are not suitable for typesetting
>>documents.
>>
>>SGML, FrameMaker & TeX/LateX are the only ones
>>capable of doing that.
> 
> 
> This was pretty much true about a year ago.  However, after version 2.3,
which adds the kerning feature, OpenOffice.org can produce very professionally
looking documents.
> 
> All of the OOo User Guides, which are every bit as complex as if not more
so than our own user guides, are now "self-generated".  Solveig
Haugland, a highly respected OpenOffice.org consultant, published her book
"OpenOffice.org 2 Guidebook" (a 527-page book complete with drawings,
table of contents, multi-column index, etc.) entirely on OOo.
> 
> Another key consideration, in addition to perhaps a desire to support our
sister product, is that the documents so generated are guaranteed to be
displayable on the OS they are intended to serve.  This is a pretty important
consideration IMO.  :-)
>  
>  
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> 
-- 
David Collier-Brown            | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto      | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at sun.com                 |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#

> One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if
>  it''s razor-sharp,
> ut that doesn''t make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.
> 
> I love star office, and use it every day, but my
>  publisher uses
> rame, so that''s what I use for books.
> 
> --dave
As of Build 95, I am still unable to read a good part of the Adm Guide.

I did a quick and dirty experiment by copying and pasting a page from the Adm
Guide that contains the "invisible" fonts into StarSuite, then
exporting it to PDF.  Lo and behold, all the problems disappeared.

I understand there is a bug in the current builds of OpenSolaris that is out of
Sun''s control.  I am sure this problem will be solved when 2008.11
comes out (fingers crossed!).  However, there is no guarantee that this problem
will not reappear again.  Then we will just have to fire up VirtualBox to read
those Sun-published PDF files.

Again, I don''t see any reason why we should not consider using
StarOffice (BTW, it''s "StarOffice"--one word, not "star
office") to publish the Adm Guide, as well as other Sun publications.  
Microsoft generates more than 50% of its profits from sales of its Office
suites.  It is my experience that if one is willing to invest time and effort,
StarOffice is, give and take, at least as competent as any desktop publishing
tool, especially when compared to Microsoft Office, in publishing technical
documents.  Of course, what is good enough for a pauper may not be good enough
for Sun''s employees.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>> One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if
>>  it''s razor-sharp,
>> ut that doesn''t make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.
>>
>> I love star office, and use it every day, but my
>>  publisher uses
>> rame, so that''s what I use for books.
>>
>> --dave
>>     
>
> As of Build 95, I am still unable to read a good part of the Adm Guide.
>
> I did a quick and dirty experiment by copying and pasting a page from the
Adm Guide that contains the "invisible" fonts into StarSuite, then
exporting it to PDF.  Lo and behold, all the problems disappeared.
>
> I understand there is a bug in the current builds of OpenSolaris that is
out of Sun''s control.  I am sure this problem will be solved when
2008.11 comes out (fingers crossed!).  However, there is no guarantee that this
problem will not reappear again.  Then we will just have to fire up VirtualBox
to read those Sun-published PDF files.
>   
This is not a PDF problem, it is a freetype font problem which
was introduced with freetype 2.3.6 in b93 and should be fixed in b97.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6723656
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6712820
 -- richard

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> Again, I don''t see any reason why we should not consider using 
> StarOffice (BTW, it''s "StarOffice"--one word, not
"star office") to
> publish the Adm Guide, as well as other Sun publications.
You are saying that Sun should start over from scratch and attempt to 
use the wrong kind of tool to attempt to reproduce all the content at 
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs?  Good Grief!

Bob
=====================================Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

> > Again, I don''t see any reason why we should not
> consider using 
> > StarOffice (BTW, it''s "StarOffice"--one word, not
> "star office") to 
> > publish the Adm Guide, as well as other Sun
> publications.
> 
> You are saying that Sun should start over from
> scratch and attempt to 
> use the wrong kind of tool to attempt to reproduce
> all the content at 
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs?  Good Grief!
> 
> Bob
> =====================================> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us,
> http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,
>    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Well, the best way (& probably the only way) to convince others to use your
product, is to use it yourself.

The opposite of this moral is the real ugly one:  If you (i.e., "Sun")
don''t use your own product, no one else will.  The same theory also
goes with Solaris.

Actually, once your have the text, an experienced StarOffice user can do all the
formatting in "less than an hour" (no kidding).  Text is different
from Graphics.  With a proper collection of template libraries, all you need to
do is click, click, and click.

I apologize for wasting the bandwidth.  As Richard mentioned in a previous
reply, this is not a PDF problem.  It just so happened that only Sun''s
documents have problems.  This is particularly frustrating as I haven''t
had time to work around the VirtualBox bug in build 95.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Waynel,

It takes significant amount of work to typeset any large document. Especially if
it is a technical document in which you have to adhere to a set of strict
typesetting guidelines. In these cases separation of content and style is
essential and can''t be stressed enough.

Word Processors have no mechanism to enforce this separation. So you can not
guarantee that a given document strictly follows the set standard of styling
rules - these include presentation AND language rules. Eg. how to hyphenate
certain words and how to decide how long a given dash would be.

In a word processor this task is manual & labor intensive, but current
advances have made it good for one-off document. Still, they are grossly
inadequate for large documents and manuals which have to be written by group of
people, styled by another group of people, proof-read, cross referenced, and
updated from time to time.

SGML based tools (eg. docbook), LaTeX/TeX and Adobe FrameMaker are the only
tools that can do this at present.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

> Waynel,
> 
> It takes significant amount of work to typeset any
> large document. Especially if it is a technical
> document in which you have to adhere to a set of
> strict typesetting guidelines. In these cases
> separation of content and style is essential and
> can''t be stressed enough.
> 
> Word Processors have no mechanism to enforce this
> separation. So you can not guarantee that a given
> document strictly follows the set standard of styling
> rules - these include presentation AND language
> rules. Eg. how to hyphenate certain words and how to
> decide how long a given dash would be.
> 
> In a word processor this task is manual & labor
> intensive, but current advances have made it good for
> one-off document. Still, they are grossly inadequate
> for large documents and manuals which have to be
> written by group of people, styled by another group
> of people, proof-read, cross referenced, and updated
> from time to time.
> 
> SGML based tools (eg. docbook), LaTeX/TeX and Adobe
> FrameMaker are the only tools that can do this at
> present.
Just curious, when was the last time you used StarOffice?

Sorry, can''t help it.  :-)
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:06:13AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh
wrote:
> > It takes significant amount of work to typeset any
> > large document. Especially if it is a technical
> > document in which you have to adhere to a set of
> > strict typesetting guidelines. In these cases
> > separation of content and style is essential and
> > can''t be stressed enough.
> > 
> > Word Processors have no mechanism to enforce this
> > separation. So you can not guarantee that a given
> > document strictly follows the set standard of styling
> > rules - these include presentation AND language
> > rules. Eg. how to hyphenate certain words and how to
> > decide how long a given dash would be.
> > 
> > In a word processor this task is manual & labor
> > intensive, but current advances have made it good for
> > one-off document. Still, they are grossly inadequate
> > for large documents and manuals which have to be
> > written by group of people, styled by another group
> > of people, proof-read, cross referenced, and updated
> > from time to time.
> > 
> > SGML based tools (eg. docbook), LaTeX/TeX and Adobe
> > FrameMaker are the only tools that can do this at
> > present.
> 
> Just curious, when was the last time you used StarOffice?
When was the last time you used Latex and Framemaker?  When was
the last time you were responsible for the work of 100 people?

Please read Akhilesh''s answer carefully and stop repeating
the same thing.  Staroffice is to Latex/Framemaker what a
mid-size sedan is to an 18-wheeler.  To the untrained eye,
they appear to perform similar actions, but the actual overlap
is really small.
> Sorry, can''t help it.  :-)
Please, try harder...

florin

-- 
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
      http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20080827/1733e38a/attachment.bin>

> Please read Akhilesh''s answer carefully and stop
> repeating
> the same thing.  Staroffice is to Latex/Framemaker
> what a
> mid-size sedan is to an 18-wheeler.  To the untrained
> eye,
> they appear to perform similar actions, but the
> actual overlap
> is really small.
> 
> > Sorry, can''t help it.  :-)
> 
> Please, try harder...
> 
> florin
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>       http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
> EGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
I am asking you to do the same, too.  Please read my series of posts carefully.

I am sensing a strong hostility in the Solaris community against
StarOfficce/OpenOffice.org.  Perhaps it is no surprise that the Solaris version
of OpenOffice.org seriously (from the point of view of an experienced user) lags
that of other operating systems.  Actually, a couple of main stream Linux
distros (e.g., SuSE and Ubuntu) are using a forked (by Novell) version of
OpenOffice.org.  If someone can help me port that version of OOo to OpenSolaris,
I will greatly appreciate it.  (However, with this out-burst, I doubt anyone
will.  :-)  )

I don''t doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in conjunction with
Distiller in producing nicely typeset books and brochures.  But how good is a
tool if it produces a product that its intended users can NOT read?  This is
what prompted me to start this thread--and I really regret that I brought this
issue up.  I know this problem is being solved, but can someone guarantee me
that this will never happen again?

Second, Sun is claiming, according to its CEO, to be transferring itself into an
open source powerhouse.  How does the act of refusing to use an open source
product which is perhaps 90~95% as good but can be iteratively improved, impact
someone like myself who wants to believe everything Sun said?

It is the latter that I care the most about.
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:41, W. Wayne Liauh <wp at hawaiilinux.us>
wrote:
> I don''t doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in conjunction
with Distiller in producing nicely typeset books and brochures.  But how good is
a tool if it produces a product that its intended users can NOT read?  This is
what prompted me to start this thread--and I really regret that I brought this
issue up.  I know this problem is being solved, but can someone guarantee me
that this will never happen again?
The problem is not in those products, but in the PDF reader.  If you''d
like to suggest that an alternative viewer be included, that would be
a reasonable suggestion.  Changing the implementation which generates
the documents (which Sun controls) to fix a problem on the display end
(which Sun also controls) is a silly idea.  Fix the viewer and the
problem is solved.  Switching to OOo would not guarantee anything.
> Second, Sun is claiming, according to its CEO, to be transferring itself
into an open source powerhouse.  How does the act of refusing to use an open
source product which is perhaps 90~95% as good but can be iteratively improved,
impact someone like myself who wants to believe everything Sun said?
LaTeX [1] and OpenJade (a DocBook implementation) are also open
source.  To use OOo instead just because it''s Sun''s project
would
smack of NIH syndrome [2] to me.

Will

[1]: http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.html
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here

> I don''t doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in
> conjunction with Distiller in producing (the pdf
> versions of) nicely typeset books and brochures.  But
> how good is a tool if it produces a product that its
> intended users can NOT read?  This is what prompted
> 
You seem to have missed the following reply by richard....

============= Quote ==================This is not a PDF problem, it is a
freetype font problem which
was introduced with freetype 2.3.6 in b93 and should be fixed in b97.

http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6723656
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6712820
-- richard
===================================
This is a freetype problem, and such problems can impact anything. Nevada builds
are anything but "lightly tested" developer snapshots. They
didn''t even introduce the problem - freetype folks did!

On my system (nv84)  OpenOffice looked so crap (thick ugly fonts) that I avoided
using it until I compiled and replaced freetype.

Secondly, PDF & Latex/docbook/SGML are as "free" and "open
source" as you can get. PDF is open spec & anyone can create a viewer.
It''s like using Gimp to produce an art instead of GNOME Paint.

Just like Gimp shouldn''t be blamed if someone''s image viewer
is broken and they can''t see an image, we shouldn''t blame the
tools that generated the PDF. The PDFs render fine in the following viewers I
have on this nv84 system:

* xpdf (3.02)
* Acrobat Reader 8.0 (running via wine)
* Foxit Reader 2.3 (running on wine)
* GhostScript

Thirdly, most (all?) the docs can be created independently by community. Infact
you can start creating one yourself rather than wait/depend on Sun or anybody
else. Isn''t that what open source all about ?

- Akhilesh
 
 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On 27-Aug-08, at 1:41 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>> Please read Akhilesh''s answer carefully and stop
>> repeating
>> the same thing.  Staroffice is to Latex/Framemaker
>> what a
>> mid-size sedan is to an 18-wheeler.  To the untrained
>> eye,
>> they appear to perform similar actions, but the
>> actual overlap
>> is really small.
>>
>>> Sorry, can''t help it.  :-)
>>
>> Please, try harder...
>>
>> florin
>>
>> --  
>> Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>>       http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
>> EGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> I am asking you to do the same, too.  Please read my series of  
> posts carefully.
>
> I am sensing a strong hostility in the Solaris community against  
> StarOfficce/OpenOffice.org.  Perhaps it is no surprise that the  
> Solaris version of OpenOffice.org seriously (from the point of view  
> of an experienced user) lags that of other operating systems.   
> Actually, a couple of main stream Linux distros (e.g., SuSE and  
> Ubuntu) are using a forked (by Novell) version of OpenOffice.org.   
> If someone can help me port that version of OOo to OpenSolaris, I  
> will greatly appreciate it.  (However, with this out-burst, I doubt  
> anyone will.  :-)  )
>
> I don''t doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in conjunction  
> with Distiller in producing nicely typeset books and brochures.
You missed the part about large scale teams, workflow, etc. OoO is  
meant for simple office tasks, not to replace industrial-scale  
documentation systems.
> But how good is a tool if it produces a product that its intended  
> users can NOT read?  This is what prompted me to start this thread-- 
> and I really regret that I brought this issue up.  I know this  
> problem is being solved, but can someone guarantee me that this  
> will never happen again?
The bug is completely unrelated to your spirited advocacy of OoO.  
There is no reason to think that similar annoyances would never arise  
with OoO produced documents.
>
> Second, Sun is claiming, according to its CEO, to be transferring  
> itself into an open source powerhouse.
Scott McNealy himself claims that "Sharing has been [Sun''s]
corporate
strategy since February 24, 1984." Under Schwartz a lot more rubber  
has been meeting the road. By some measures Sun is the largest open  
source contributor on the planet. What have *you* done for open  
source lately?

>   How does the act of refusing to use an open source product which  
> is perhaps 90~95% as good but can be iteratively improved,
As those who know have already argued, the product is simply not  
appropriate for this use. By the way, LaTeX has been open source  
since before Linux and 99% of open source programs existed.

--Toby

> impact someone like myself who wants to believe everything Sun said?
>
> It is the latter that I care the most about.
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

> ZFS Administration Guide (in PDF format) does not
> look very professional (at least on
> Evince/OS2008.05).  Please see attached screenshot.
I have cleaned up the original pdf file.  Please see:

http://tinyurl.com/zfs-pdf

The invisible parts (original) are now visible (corrected).

It is not too difficult a job.

Just wish that we can be more thoughtful.

The only people affected are us hard-core OpenSolaris users.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org