On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:45 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 28 January 2010 01:16, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 01:47 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 23:08 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >> > 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
> >> > > I suspect a lo
On 28 January 2010 01:16, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 01:47 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 23:08 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> > 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
>> > > I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
>> > > those k
On 28 January 2010 10:38, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:08:25PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
>> > I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
>> > those kinds of tools that "just works" and so people stick with i
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:08:25PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
> > I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
> > those kinds of tools that "just works" and so people stick with it.
>
> Well.. perhaps. OTOH people seem to have happily
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 01:47 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 23:08 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
> > > I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
> > > those kinds of tools that "just works" and so people stick with
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 23:08 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
> > I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
> > those kinds of tools that "just works" and so people stick with it.
>
> Well.. perhaps. OTOH people seem to have happily migrat
2010/1/27 Orion Poplawski :
> I suspect a lot of our users will be similarly annoyed. This is one of
> those kinds of tools that "just works" and so people stick with it.
Well.. perhaps. OTOH people seem to have happily migrated from xpdf to
evince over time (or at least that's my perception).
--
On 01/27/2010 12:45 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:04 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide
>> equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik.
>> Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers d
Jussi Lehtola on 01/27/2010 01:45 PM wrote:
> As a heavy LaTeX user I would be really against dropping xdvi before
> there is some other app that runs as fast. Evince very slow - xdvi shows
> pages straight away, whereas evince often displays "Loading..."
How about profiling evince instead?
perf
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 18:04 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide
> equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik.
> Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers don't give some
> particular functionality, it woul
2010/1/27 Till Maas :
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:04:49PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
>> However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide
>> equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik.
>> Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers don't give some
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:04:49PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> However, it's not clear to me if okular and evince-dvi provide
> equivalent functionality that we're yet in a position to drop xdvik.
> Comments? If you use xdvik because other viewers don't give some
> particular functionality,
Dear All,
We currently ship xdvik as a package separate to texlive (for a
variety of reasons). Looking forward to when we ship texlive-2009,
it'll be built as part of the texlive package build once more.
However, even better would be to drop it entirely, for the following
reasons:
1) It's a legac
13 matches
Mail list logo
