> I'd highly recommend going the pdftex route instead
> http://www.tug.org/applications/pdftex/)
> . Pdftex generates much more compatible PDF files that the dvips
> route--aka, dvips output prints to paper fine, looks horrid on most
> PDF viewers.
Whether the files generated by dvips look okay in PDF viewers
depends on whether they embed bitmap or vector versions of
the fonts.
On Plan 9, if you run
dvips file.dvi >file.ps
ps2pdf file.ps file.pdf
then you will get a PDF that looks as good on screen as
anything generated by pdftex.
The PostScript file.ps itself may not be too portable, because it
will refer to PostScript versions of the TeX fonts, which are
installed as part of the Plan 9 TeX package but not so
common elsewhere. To embed full copies of the fonts
in the output, creating a larger PostScript file, use
dvips -Ppsfonts file.dvi >file.ps
If you want to embed crappy-looking bitmap fonts
that could take a long time to generate (the default
on most Unix TeX installations), you can use
dvips -Pbitmapfonts file.dvi >file.ps
All this isn't to say that a pdftex port wouldn't be nice;
it's just not necessary to create screen-readable PDFs.
Of course, even with the default Unix TeX installations,
you can avoid this problem by using PostScript fonts
like Times-Roman instead of the Computer Modern fonts.
Russ
