Thank you! I will check with Ivritex and let this list know about it; I will post here any solution that works, if there will be such.
Peleg. On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 03:20 +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote: > Peleg Michaeli wrote: > > Thank you all for your replies! > > > > I will try ivritex's mailing list; it's quite weird, because I do have > > culmus fonts installed - the problem is with ivritex, still? > > > > Probably. My understanding is that most of the functionality of ivritex > has already been incorporated into babel (3.8, I believe). However, that > does *not* include usage of the culmus fonts --- so the fact that > they're installed in the system doesn't mean that latex knows how to use > them yet. That is still under development under the auspices of ivritex, > and can be downloaded here > https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=33341. But I > think that it's not complete yet, though I'm not sure. > > So here's what I would do: > > 1) try installing culmus-latex from the above link, and see how it is. > You might want to try the subversion repository, which is slightly more > up-to-date. > > 2) If it's not good enough, get in touch with the ivritex mailing list > and see if anyone knows what the current status is: is this still being > developed? Will this work ever be incorporated into babel, too? > > 3) It would be interesting to understand how the culmus fonts *do* > already work in latex on Windows --- maybe that can point in a direction > for getting it working on Linux, too... Agai, the ivritex list is where > I would pursue this... > > > Anyway, it is comfoting that you can see both in a good quality. > > > > Yes, I am not using adobe reader (since it is not free software); I am > > using just simple PDF viewer (actually, Evince 0.8.1) - for the > > experiment, I have tried a different PDF viewer - KGhostView 0.2.0 - and > > it looks much better - but this software is awfully slow and have > > problems with zoomings. > > > > Hmmm, I guess you're more idealistic than me... I have found that the > quality in Acrobat Reader (which is at least free as in beer) is often > significantly better than the open source alternatives that I have tried > --- though I haven't tried these in a couple of years, so things may be > better today. I'm sorry to hear the evince isn't better, I was hoping > that perhaps it would be. You might want to try okular --- it's the new > KDE viewer, still under development, I believe. Haven't tried it myself, > though... > > Dov
