On 11/19/05 7:44 AM, "Steven T. Hatton" wrote:

On Saturday 19 November 2005 07:34 am, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

...

Same here...I would rather receive things digitally, then I can always print it out myself. (my only issue is getting things to duplex correctly sometimes) Anytime a new manual comes out (as with a new version-upgrade) I print out the books for it.

The PDF formats lets me do word searches, but many times I have to read the whole thing first to understand _what_ to look for...

Yes, I can read them off of a laptop while in the car or something, but a book doesn't have batteries that die.

Suppose you are dealing with a 4-volume set with the smallest volume having over a thousand printed pages? Would you prefer to get the hardcopy professionally bound, or use whatever mechanism you currently use?

http://www.mathematicaguidebooks.org/

Steven

LOL We are printers...we perfect bind ourselves... Also all the others...GBC, spiral, etc. But my fav is a cheap 3 ring binder. Quick, cheap, reusable. Sorry I can't really help, but I see your dilemma. -- Thanks, George If you play a Windows 2000 disk backwards you will hear satanic chants but - and this is much more frightening - if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

I hate e-books. After about 10 minutes of reading one, progressively getting slower and slower, I inevitably end up with a migraine. Yes, my refresh rate is set fine etc. I much, much prefer old fashioned paper. I am not a fan of printing out reference material from an electronic source either but sometimes I have to.

Hmmm, maybe you need a vaio laptop with those beautiful x-black LCD's? Jerry

Carlos, On Sunday 20 November 2005 08:25, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Paper is easier to read, and you can go to bed with it: a chapter of the SuSE Adminstration Guide, and I'm off :-p . But electronic paper is being developed, that can be printed "by wire", like a display. Perhaps we'll have books like that some time in the future.

Count on it. The first technologies are actually just around the corner. The value of "digital paper" (by any definition, and there are several) is so great and so obvious that a lot of people are working very hard on it.

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

Kevan, On Monday 21 November 2005 04:33, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

I have no doubt that in the distant future books will all be in an electronic format :-((((( However, I also believe that there will always be a substantial number of people who yearn for good old fashioned printed on paper :-) Like me. I have an extensive book collection here at home. Quite a mixture of computing books, antural history and a lot of fishing books. I also have a massive collection - for an average Joe Public - of fiction, crime, horror and sci-fi. Fiction is the one that I like to snuggle down in bed with and read before going to sleep and no electronic book is ever going to replace that feeling. It will, of course, inevitably become a lost feeling.

I, too, love books and my apartment is not big enough to hold my library. Does that stop me from getting more? No way. But I think it's likely we'll see digital paper that is entirely paper-like (thin, flexible, probably tougher than real paper) that can display text and imagery like a printed page but be electronically changeable as well as holding its image persistently even when no power is supplied. Such books would have all the characteristics of a book today plus allow moving images and sound and search. No doubt with such technology in hand, people would find new things to do with "books." Would you object to having your library in electronic form and only as many "books" as you could actually use at once? Probably, and probably so would I, but that may not be true of future generations of book lovers. I do like to browse my library and pick up titles to peruse just to see what snippet of new knowledge I can pick up. Of course, when I can't find something I know is in some book somewhere in my library, I'm annoyed...

Kevan Farmer

Randall Schulz

Carlos, On Monday 21 November 2005 13:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Monday 2005-11-21 at 07:06 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I, too, love books and my apartment is not big enough to hold my library. Does that stop me from getting more? No way.

Me too.

...

But I think it's likely we'll see digital paper that is entirely paper-like (thin, flexible, probably tougher than real paper) that can display text and imagery like a printed page but be electronically changeable as well as holding its image persistently even when no power is supplied. Such books would have all the characteristics of a book today plus allow moving images and sound and search. No doubt with such technology in hand, people would find new things to do with "books."

I don't need cute features like search or sound, for that I'd have the wall computer or the tablet (think Star Trek). What I want is to decide what I'm going to read, "plug" an empty or available "digibook" to the computer, and download "I Robot" to it in a reasonable time, so that I can take it to bed.

Searching is "cute?" Would sound be "cute" in a book that was meant to teach one a new language? In any event, you'll get what you want (unless you're well over 80 already).

...

Think!

Save the preaching, OK? We can always go backwards and you'll surely be able to keep the books (paper-style) you have.

You need a CD. A computer. Electricity. Suppose civilization is destroyed, you have to build anew. You know the "disaster first aid manual" is in that CD... which you can not read, because there is no power, computers were destroyed, and you have to build electronic manufacturing first. It'd take ages! Supposing the knowledge or the paper books to rebuild all that were written and survived...

But speaking of thinking, you certainly won't need a CD and probably not what we'd call a computer, either. You can take your e-book and your DRM credentials to any public terminal and retrieve a copy from the publisher or retailer when you please.

Ok, I shut up. It is OT. ...

Yes.

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

On Monday 21 November 2005 21:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Monday 2005-11-21 at 07:06 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

I, too, love books and my apartment is not big enough to hold my library. Does that stop me from getting more? No way.

Me too.

...

But I think it's likely we'll see digital paper that is entirely paper-like (thin, flexible, probably tougher than real paper) that can display text and imagery like a printed page but be electronically changeable as well as holding its image persistently even when no power is supplied. Such books would have all the characteristics of a book today plus allow moving images and sound and search. No doubt with such technology in hand, people would find new things to do with "books."

I don't need cute features like search or sound, for that I'd have the wall computer or the tablet (think Star Trek). What I want is to decide what I'm going to read, "plug" an empty or available "digibook" to the computer, and download "I Robot" to it in a reasonable time, so that I can take it to bed.

...

Would you object to having your library in electronic form and only as many "books" as you could actually use at once? Probably, and probably so would I, but that may not be true of future generations of book lovers. I do like to browse my library and pick up titles to peruse just to see what snippet of new knowledge I can pick up. Of course, when I can't find something I know is in some book somewhere in my library, I'm annoyed...

Paper is probably more perdurable than any other technology we have invented yet for data storage. It has been proven "technology" over the centuries.

Apart from adding that parchment is probably to be preferred if you want serious longevity - our 700 year old Matthew Paris manuscript is liable to be going just as strong in another 700 years as long as no-one soaks or burns it - Carlos is absolutely right about longevity. The bulk of material in our library is two to five hundred years old, and I would like to see the electronic technology that proves stable and reliable enough to retrieve data anywhere you like that has enough light without power supply over that kind of timespan. Various highly misguided schemes, such as 'transferring' books and periodicals to microfilm, trashing the originals to save space, have already come horribly unstuck as 'disposable' 19th century newspapers prove time and again that they last a great deal better than the surrogate media intended to replace them. Nicholson Baker has written an excellent book on this theme, 'Double Fold: libraries and the assault on paper', 2002. Check it out for some very interesting findings on serious data longevity.

Think!

You need a CD. A computer. Electricity. Suppose civilization is destroyed, you have to build anew. You know the "disaster first aid manual" is in that CD... which you can not read, because there is no power, computers were destroyed, and you have to build electronic manufacturing first. It'd take ages! Supposing the knowledge or the paper books to rebuild all that were written and survived...

Ok, I shut up. It is OT. Well... it could be worse... that CD could be in word instead of in OOo, and only Linux could be rebuilt because Microsoft had disappeared! :-p

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2005-11-22 at 07:12 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

As I said, I love books, too, but Nicholson Baker is so agog over his beloved newspapers that he sees them as treasures to be preserved, not records of their times to be made accessible to the public. His is an antiquarian agenda, not a public information agenda. I'm not necessarily saying fiche or film is (or was) the right solution to the challenge of archival storage for newspapers, but neither do I believe that paper is the apex of information recording and distribution media.

Neither do I. But saving our precious data (knowledge, history, whatever) _only_ in somekind of electronic media could be dangerous in the very-long-term. Perhaps there is need to safekeep in paper or something as durable, and use in crystalmemorycube or whatever. That's an ongoing debate in big libraries, I understand, as Fergus hinted. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDg29mtTMYHG2NR9URAkgkAJ4ggrta0PqKJ/IZJMvhWyhD8QqzGACeJ+XR ZOdWI/lEoiuBaqWQ7T7iOLw= =7rqv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 11:20 am, Carlos E. R. wrote:

The Tuesday 2005-11-22 at 07:12 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

As I said, I love books, too, but Nicholson Baker is so agog over his beloved newspapers that he sees them as treasures to be preserved, not records of their times to be made accessible to the public. His is an antiquarian agenda, not a public information agenda. I'm not necessarily saying fiche or film is (or was) the right solution to the challenge of archival storage for newspapers, but neither do I believe that paper is the apex of information recording and distribution media.

Neither do I.

But saving our precious data (knowledge, history, whatever) _only_ in somekind of electronic media could be dangerous in the very-long-term. Perhaps there is need to safekeep in paper or something as durable, and use in crystalmemorycube or whatever.

That's an ongoing debate in big libraries, I understand, as Fergus hinted.

Having a long history with document imaging and storage systems, I ended up one time in a discussion about five years ago with one of the guys who was maintaining the records for the U-2 project, which at the time was still ongoing. He had a great point - all their information is kept in microfilm. If they had tried to use some electronic means in the '50s, '60's, '70's or even '80s, it would have quickly been obsolete and extremely expensive to maintain. Microfilm on the other hand is cheap and longer lasting. -- kai www.perfectreign.com linux - genuine windows replacement part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2005-11-22 at 22:07 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote:

Having a long history with document imaging and storage systems, I ended up one time in a discussion about five years ago with one of the guys who was maintaining the records for the U-2 project, which at the time was still ongoing.

Sorry, I don't know what U-2 is :-?

He had a great point - all their information is kept in microfilm. If they had tried to use some electronic means in the '50s, '60's, '70's or even '80s, it would have quickly been obsolete and extremely expensive to maintain. Microfilm on the other hand is cheap and longer lasting.

True, unfortunately. In the worst case, you only need a good magnifying glass. On the other hand, it degrades with use (scratches). - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDhIzvtTMYHG2NR9URAmY4AKCL0SXNhgCDwqw561JeIGa/552zSQCfYHkK Pqp4bXJYqMHGyYTkzBTC5uQ= =SKWC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Randall R Schulz [11-23-05 11:24]:

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 07:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sorry, I don't know what U-2 is :-?

The U-2 was a very-high-altitude spy plane the U.S. developed to monitor Soviet activities during the Cold War. There was a famous incident in which one was shot down over the Soviet Union and its pilot captured.

Stephen Powers, if I remember the newspaper articles correctly. Yes, I read them. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Randall R Schulz [11-23-05 11:24]:

...

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 07:38, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Sorry, I don't know what U-2 is :-? The U-2 was a very-high-altitude spy plane the U.S. developed to monitor Soviet activities during the Cold War. There was a famous incident in which one was shot down over the Soviet Union and its pilot captured.

Stephen Powers, if I remember the newspaper articles correctly. Yes, I read them.

No, it was Gary Francis Powers. Perhaps you're thinking of Stephanie Powers.the actress. She was also involved with espionage in the "Girl from Uncle" TV series.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2005-11-23 at 14:09 -0500, Bryan Tyson wrote:

...

...

one time in a discussion about five years ago with one of the guys who was maintaining the records for the U-2 project, which at the time was still ongoing. Sorry, I don't know what U-2 is :-?

The U2 was a spy plane that flew at extremely high altitudes, so high it would not be detected, and it took photographs for intelligence.

Ah, yes! Of course, it didn't occur to me, too out of context ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDhwfTtTMYHG2NR9URAv85AJ4l+FCIROoIK0b0LU5b+nk8bKjxewCglUPv WDS6Pc4V+Y0ygdn07xKCtjA= =My6h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Thursday 2005-11-24 at 20:10 -0500, James Knott wrote:

...

...

...

Having a long history with document imaging and storage systems, I ended up one time in a discussion about five years ago with one of the guys who was maintaining the records for the U-2 project, which at the time was still ongoing.

Sorry, I don't know what U-2 is :-?

You mean you've never heard of U2 or BONO???

A musical group, but not my kind of music :-p I didn't know what was u-2 in the context we were talking, I didn't remember the plane.

Actually, the U2 is a spy plane first built by Lockheed, back in the '50, with later versions still flying for research as well.

I heard that it leaks a lot of oil while at "low" altitudes, till it gets to the altitude and temperature for which it was designed. Funny I remember that. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFDhwjbtTMYHG2NR9URAluFAJ0c4emTcwdvmAkojT0PYUWjjynzDwCfbhF4 fHTYeAx66D5lLnjGGGRgC6E= =xiOz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Kai Ponte wrote:

On Friday 25 November 2005 04:51 am, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Actually, the U2 is a spy plane first built by Lockheed, back in the '50, with later versions still flying for research as well. I heard that it leaks a lot of oil while at "low" altitudes, till it gets to the altitude and temperature for which it was designed. Funny I remember that.

This is getting way OT, but yes it does. I used to do work at Edwards AFB and would occasionally see a U-2 land. Looked a lot like an clown with oversize shoes trying to do ballet. You could smell it all the way out on the runway.

Wasn't that the SR-71 that leaked? As a subsonic plane, the U2 wouldn't have the same thermal issues as the Blackbird.

Kai Ponte wrote:

On Saturday 26 November 2005 12:11 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

Wasn't that the SR-71 that leaked? As a subsonic plane, the U2 wouldn't have the same thermal issues as the Blackbird.

IIRC, both. Never saw an SR-71/A12.

Well, I've never seen a U2, but I have seen the Blackbird in air shows. At mach 3, cruising speed for the Blackbird, heating due to friction is a serious problem. It is not at the speeds the U2 flies, which is similar to that at which commercial airliners fly. If it's a problem for the U2, it should be a problem for 747s, Airbus 300s etc. You don't see many of them leaking fuel all over the ground.

James Knott wrote:

Incidenatally, it should have been called the RS-71, but President Lyndon Johnson goofed, calling it the SR-71 and no one wanted to correct him. So all the designers had to go back and rename all their blue

I was too young to remember that stuff first hand but you got me curious enough to look up on my own. I am certainly familiar with the SR-71 but this was the first time I ever heard the story of the RS-71 switch. I found some interesting links suggesting the above is not correct. http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_SR71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71 The USAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAF had planned to redesignate the R-12 aircraft as the RS-71 (Reconnaissance-Strike) as the succsessor to the RS-70 Valkyrie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-70_Valkyrie, which had two test Valkyrie's flying at Edwards AFB, California. However, then USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay preferred the SR designation and wanted the RS-70 to be named SR-70. Before the Blackbird was to be announced by Lyndon B. Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson on February 29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_29, 1964 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_in_aviation, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to also read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the plane's designation. Damon Register

On 11/19/05 6:58 AM, "Jerry Westrick" wrote:

A hot cup of tee, a nice couch in front of a warm fireplace, and the hard book works so much better for me!

That must get really HOT in August or July. Or do you just not learn anything in the summer? LOL - sorry, I couldn't help myself. ;) Oh, and your two links on your web site are dead. :( -- Thanks, George "...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP" (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)

On Saturday 19 November 2005 01:39 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:

Steven,

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:37:12 -0500, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

...

I'm curious to know what people think about hardcopy documentation verses electronic form.

Could please ask such questions on a list like suse-ot? It is grossly off-topic for this list.

Philipp

What's this mean? $ pdf2ps INCITS+ISO+IEC+14882-2003.pdf INCITS+ISO+IEC+14882-2003.ps **** Warning: Fonts with Subtype = /TrueType should be embedded. But Arial,Bold is not embedded. **** This file had errors that were repaired or ignored. **** The file was produced by: **** >>>> Acrobat Distiller 5.0.5 (Windows) <<<< **** Please notify the author of the software that produced this **** file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF **** specification. I can hardly read the output of my script: $ cat ~/bin/make-book.sh #!/bin/bash SIGNATURE=20 usage="make-book.sh [-s signature] filename" while getopts ":s:w:c:" opt; do case $opt in s ) SIGNATURE=$OPTARG ;; \? ) echo $usage exit 1 ;; esac done shift $(($OPTIND - 1)) FILE_NAME=$1 psbook -s$SIGNATURE $FILE_NAME | psnup -pletter -2 > ${FILE_NAME%.ps}-book.ps;

On Saturday 19 November 2005 05:46 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Steven T. Hatton [11-19-05 15:02]:

...

What's this mean?

It means that you should repost in a new thread with a correct Subject:.

What? Printing hardcopy of documentation on SuSE Linux?