digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

PDF now is an ISO standard.

appleinsider.com — Adobe has relinquished control of the Portable Document Format (PDF) to the ISO (International Organization for Standardization), which will now assume developmental control of the format as an industry standard.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jakash, on 07/02/2008, -11/+254Foxit Reader: http://www.download.com/Foxit-PDF-Reader/3000-2079 ...
    • geoken, on 07/03/2008, -30/+4Since ver. 8 Adobe Reader has been as fast as foxit, while being a better app.
      • Psi57, on 07/03/2008, -3/+39Hah! Go jack off to RealPlayer.
      • elmetald00d, on 07/03/2008, -0/+36are you joking? Foxit handles ebooks MUCH better.

        Foxit opens in about... 2 seconds and closes quickly and looks nice doesn't take up 300MB of my ram


        ***** Adobe Reader
      • NerveBand, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8I really like FoxIt Reader, but sometimes rendering large images and objects takes lots of CPU horsepower and seriously take years to load on what should take a few seconds. Take the MTA subway map as my example. It also constantly redraws a PDF, something it shouldn't do just because I'm zooming in.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3And unfortunately, for the really weird postscript demos (like those in the TeX art community), Preview.app and Foxit just can't handle those really complex files, making Adobe Reader a necessity for professionals in publishing or graphics to at least keep around.
      • golvin, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4No, Foxit is still faster
      • 0xbaadf00d, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Adobe doesn't let you save fillable pdfs unless the creator paid some licensing fee. Foxit does.
      • fatrandy13, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You are just flat out wrong.
      • rhabd0mancer, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3On my machine, Adobe Acrobat 8 Standard takes about 2 secs to open. And that's with all the turbo launch crap disabled.
    • Nitesmoke, on 07/03/2008, -3/+70Adobe's reader is crap. It uses much more ram to open the same document as Foxit.
      • DefaultGen, on 07/03/2008, -0/+22Not to mention the fact that it takes 5 minutes to open a document, and then when it does it tells me there's a worthless update for Adobe Reader.
      • renegadeafk, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Have any of you actually tried adobe reader 9? Opens just as fast as foxit. Yes the previous versions were awful but 9 is much improved.
    • adidos, on 07/03/2008, -7/+53Preview.app
      • elmetald00d, on 07/03/2008, -1/+16Ill digg you up because that is one of the best builtin applications.

        along with quickview on finder...
      • jtbandes, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9It's QuickLook, but you're still right.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10I think if I could pick one default mac app to have ported to other operating systems, it would be Preview. Just so good at what it does.
      • Shreyasva, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1Preview is crap for pdf's. it crashes every time u search(well most of the time). Skim FTW!!!
      • Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
    • kevman459, on 07/03/2008, -1/+40I loathed opening PDFs until I found Foxit.
    • Equinox1, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Dugg for Foxit love.
    • fredmv, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Evince, son, Evince.
      • geoken, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Evince has a lot of rendering glitches. If you need to view PDF's in a semi professional manner you'll be disappointed.
    • alanr19, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12Thanks for the heads up on that program, Adobe's flabby assed garbage reader keeps crashing my browser every time i mistakenly click on a pdf link. So much bloat, so many attempts to contact Adobe's servers quietly. One of the most unnecessarily invasive applications ever.

      And don't get me started about their updater software. There is, and i'm not making this up, also an updater for the updater. Talk about collateral bloat. ***** Adobe.
    • lmbb20, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Switched to Foxit ages ago :).
    • InorganicMatter, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Preview:
      ......

      Oh wait, nevermind.
    • Magnes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I like Evince and KPDF.
    • mitbac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Foxit always had the hardest time printing PDFs so I stuck with Adobe. Lots of people at my school had the problems, so it wasn't user error or installation error/conflict. Hopefully this 'standardization' will improve 3rd party apps, because Adobe was bloated.
    • terminal157, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Foxit has its limits. Hopefully this news heralds the creation of a better alternative yet, or an improved Foxit.
  • SquareEnix, on 07/03/2008, -3/+116about time. Now for Flash....
    • Auzy, on 07/03/2008, -16/+11We can do a let better then flash and we should try. Everything that flash can do can be replaced with HTML, AJAX, SVG and Javascript. This way we don't need to constantly worry about a special plugin (as any web standards browser will support the files), and instead of optimising 2 different technologies, we can focus on optimising one.

      All we need though is a good editor that uses these. It has been proposed to Canonical to make one: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/10553/

      So forget flash. Flash should be phased out, because we have much better replacement technologies now
      • benologist, on 07/03/2008, -1/+23"Everything that flash can do can be replaced with HTML, AJAX, SVG and Javascript."
        No it can't, but thanks for trying. There's a lot more to Flash than making pretty transitions and simple animations.
      • thecheatah, on 07/03/2008, -18/+4@ Auzy
        Try streaming music.

        @benologist
        Learn some ***** math. Animations and transitions are easy to implement. Use some extrapolating function between your transitions (least squares). Thats what flash does.

        So... yea thanks for being idiots. Both of yous.
      • SquareEnix, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5if Flash became an open standard, each browser would have their own implementation of the format, it would be no different than how each browser has their own javascript engine. they'd be no such thing as a plugin for it then.
      • Enternal, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6@thecheatah

        Hmm... perhaps you might want to work on your comprehension skills?
      • Azerael, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Try telling that to, say, Newgrounds.
      • xekko, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The SWF format is open source, ActionScript is moving towards on Mozilla's ECMAScript 4, the SDK is free and open and you can get an free editor http://www.flashdevelop.org/
        And can you do bitmap manipulation, video and 3D (as of Flash Player 10). SVG has some way to go yet...
      • maumac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Not to mention Adobe donated the AVM (ActionScript Virtual Machine) code to the Mozilla Foundation under the Tamarin project. Thus, eventually Firefox's Javascript runtime will be on par with Flash Player in terms of speed and language capabilities, _thanks to_ Adobe.
    • Elliuotatar, on 07/03/2008, -9/+10Flash sucks. Have you ever tried to make a flash animation? I have. It's a huge pain in the ass. And for making web based games it's even worse. It's practically impossible to find documentation on how to code in it. Every version uses a different version of the coding language so old code snippets don't work on newer versions.

      I write games for a living and I tried to figure out how to do a simple lens effect in code with it, and after ***** around for hours trying to find information on the web I was finally forced to conclude that such effects are not possible, and I wasn't any closer to figuring out how to do even simple things like make a scrolling background with it.

      Obviously there's people out there who've learned how to code with it, but those people are insane for having done so. It must have taken them months to become proficient.
      • benologist, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9Some things are hard, but the real problem is understanding what you can really do with Flash, and it can take a while to fully appreciate the capabilities you have at your disposal. You can do both those things you mentioned easily enough once you wrap your head around applying what flash has to what you want.

        A lens effect could be done using duplicateMovieClip (or creating a new instance in AS3), stretching it so it's "zoomed in" and creating a mask (you can use a movieclip as a mask) to hide any overflow. In a game I guess you'd have a bunch of other things to put in the lens but it's just a more refined version of that process.

        For a scrolling background it's even easier. onEnterFrame is your friend, it fires 1 / frameRate times per second, or in AS3 you might prefer to use the Timer class (used to be setInterval), then you're just increasing or decreasing the _x (or just x in AS3) property each time the enterframe or timer event occurs. You may get a little more complex and have to 'shuffle' some backgrounds to make a long background seamless but since you're tapped into an event firing each time it moves you've got the opportunity to check the position and reposition each portion accordingly.
      • illegalcortex, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5These days, Flex is a MUCH better platform for making flash-based games. It's a realy OO programming language and everything.
      • alanr19, on 07/03/2008, -9/+2Try silverlight. Yeah its microsoft but it's still quite good.
      • aenegeling, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Actionscript 3.0 for most, will take months to learn.. but once you've got the core concepts under your belt it's a very powerful and robust language to use. For those interested, check out Colin Moock's Actionscrip 3.0 book.
      • IrvineKinneas50, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3I make flash games as a side-job. I'm guessing you're trying to use AS2, which is a terrible, terrible idea for any competent programmer. AS3 is very well-documented and decends from EMCAscript.

        This is your Bible for anything AS3:
        http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLa ...

        If you know how to OOP, you can create some great games in no time on AS3. About the lens effect issue, you have to remember that Flash is vector-based, so it's not going to render a lens effect for you like a graphics-editing program would. One possible solution is to convert the screen to a bitmap (google AS3 VCam for a piece of code that will do this for you) and apply bitmap filters to it.
      • geoken, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2How is flex a better alternative for a game? Do you even know what you're talking about?

        First of all Flex is not a programming language, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're talking about MXML.

        MXML basically an easy language for initializing pre-built UI components and binding data to them. All scripting is still done through AS3. MXML is completely useless in a game where you'd be using no UI components.
      • illegalcortex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@geoken

        *sigh* Well, I have a job, at which I get paid to produce programs using Flex. So I would say I know what I'm talking about, yes. I don't think you actually know what you are talking about, though. Flex != MXML. Flex is the term for the framework, which is made up of MXML and ActionScript 3.0.

        http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/overview/
        "Flex is a free, open source framework for building highly interactive, expressive web applications that deploy consistently on all major browsers, desktops, and operating systems. It provides a modern, standards-based language and programming model that supports common design patterns. MXML, a declarative XML-based language, is used to describe UI layout and behaviors, and ActionScript™ 3, a powerful object-oriented programming language, is used to create client logic. Flex also includes a rich component library with more than 100 proven, extensible UI components for creating rich Internet applications (RIAs), as well as an interactive Flex application debugger."

        Granted, I should have phrased it "It IS BUILT ON a real OO programming language and everything", but then my intended audience wasn't a bunch of pedantic assholes. Or in your case, a pedantic ***** who "corrects" me with information that is even more incorrect.
    • Culyt, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Flash can never be a true open royalty free standard because there are a whole bunch of patents on all the codecs it uses for videos. Plus probably heaps of the core technology is licensed from other sources although I haven't really looked at that.

      The best we can hope for with flash is continuing to publish the specs like they are and the license holders looking the other way which may or may not happen since the codec holders aren't Adobe.

      The OpenScreen project is just for mobile phone manufacturers to help implement the standard, they will all still need to pay tribute to Adobe in the end since they need all the patent licences. Unless they try to go to each licence holder individually which I would assume would cost more. Plus if Adobe own patents on flash itself they still need to go to them.

      The only way for flash to become open would be if Adobe decided to use other open standards, such as Dirac or Theora, but they are instead adding h264 which is licensed.

      List of some of the patents here:
      http://h3g3m0n.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/open-video ...
  • taters05456, on 07/03/2008, -3/+10Finally, i've been hoping they would do that for a long time now.
  • JoemcC00L, on 07/03/2008, -8/+32Open-Source PDF Reader: http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/
    • thecheatah, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Come on man. There are like a million of them.
      • KingCritter, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5But Sumatra is the best. :P
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Sumatra doesn't eat up lots of memory like Adobe reader. It is very small and open-source.
    • AdamFromMyspace, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Foxit FTW
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Foxit is about the same footprint and has a lot of little features that make it worth the nominal differance.
  • r2builder, on 07/03/2008, -4/+83Just curious - is the .iso (disc image) format within the ISO standard?
  • gwolf, on 07/03/2008, -2/+36Bravo Adobe.
  • TenebrousX, on 07/03/2008, -1/+27Hopefully this will allow for better libraries for programatically creating and modifying PDFs
  • l0k0, on 07/03/2008, -1/+15Developers rejoice...
  • sea206town, on 07/03/2008, -14/+14What Dose This Mean?
    • sockpuppets, on 07/03/2008, -2/+19Mass hysteria. Dogs and cats, living together...
    • jerrycan, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4contextual mistakes?
    • solarweasel, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6i'd say you missed your last dose.
    • PhantomBantam, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7It basically means we can expect there to be more programs that use /read/write PDFs. Right now, as I understand it, it is somewhat locked down (try finding a free PDF editor that doesn't put on a watermark, and you don't need to be a programmer).

      Not sure why you were dugg down. Digg snobs, I guess.
  • Logal, on 07/03/2008, -5/+63Thank you Jeebus!.. I love PDF, it pisses me off when I have to send my resume as a .doc.... really.. what's wrong with these people?
    • chedabob, on 07/03/2008, -22/+1Because a PDF isn't really necessary for a resume?
      • smyph, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6A PDF allows a user to make sure that their resume is viewed as they design it and with the font they choose.
      • Malnilion, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2PDFs feel like a more professional way of presenting any document of importance. A .doc is just so raw...
    • Featherlake, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7Open office allows you to save docs as pdfs and has done so for a while now. Plus Open Office is free.
      • parkermauney, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This is the 8th time I've had deja vu today.
  • ufia, on 07/03/2008, -11/+2ISO means nothing. You could build a boat out of concrete that would pass ISO criterias. It may not float at all, but the building process is going to be very industry standardized. Congrats!
  • cyclades, on 07/03/2008, -4/+4Great news!
  • poopsmcgee, on 07/03/2008, -11/+10PDF
  • proficient, on 07/03/2008, -8/+4Yes. The world is now complete.
  • Syphon8, on 07/03/2008, -15/+2Awful news. ***** PDF, it is a completely useless format. Anything it can do, you can do with several other formats better.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14except get something professionally printed.

      PDF is the universal printing format. Maybe you can get them an indesign or quark file, but most printers prefer PDF. NO chance in hell they'll even consider using some other kinda format.
      • krahzee, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6And as a professional printer, sending an unofficial proof to a customer (Colors are never 100% from home printer to home printer) by email speeds up the process in that they can get right back to you with tweaks, changes, etc... before you go too far in a direction they don't care for. It saves them trips back and forth to your store and is a hell of a lot cleaner for graphics than sending jpgs, tiffs etc..used to be.
      • Syphon8, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1SVG.
    • rockus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Quote: "Anything it can do, you can do with several other formats better."
      Need citation.
    • jameslhwalker, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1the problem is that people use way to much of it, it gets abused. Some one sends me a ***** little greeting card, and i have to boot my pdf reader just to see some ***** image that they could have used html for.
  • Al3x, on 07/03/2008, -12/+85I miss my girlfriend...:-(
    • evilregis, on 07/03/2008, -8/+102I'll tell her you said 'hi'.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 07/03/2008, -2/+19I wanted to digg you, but it was at 69.
      • Briii, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1it was at 70 so i buried him
    • bluekross, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13evilregis, your mother says to stop picking on Al3x.
  • and303, on 07/03/2008, -6/+16Good. Now we can use it without Adobe's slow and bloated excuse for a reader.
    • evilregis, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6See first comment.
    • santaliqueur, on 07/03/2008, -2/+15NOW we can get rid of Adobe's reader? You still use it?
  • Hellothere123, on 07/03/2008, -7/+1I got used to Acrobat.
  • culebra, on 07/03/2008, -10/+2Gawd maybe now somebody can come up with their own proprietary format and make similar program that actually works. PDF blows. Way too slow for this day and age, given processor speeds and ram.
    • Lentium, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Adobe's PDF reader is way too slow, you should try some of the other readers being mentioned above.
  • Zanneth, on 07/03/2008, -5/+28PDF is so well-integrated into OS X that it's hard to believe that it wasn't a standard until now. Thankfully we should be having this kind of support available in Linux and Windows as well in the future.
    • JamesBrown, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13well Ubuntu (and other distros) already has PDF printing support built in. Windows has PDFCreator, which is a FOSS program that allows PDF printing. Doesn't come with Windows but it's a quick free download. So PDF support has been available in both Windows and Linux for quite a while now.
      • stalefries, on 07/03/2008, -1/+12There's a difference between PDF integration and being able to print to PDF.
      • mcmlxxii, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7I'd be interested to know how OS X has integrated PDF? I can print and export to PDF, read PDF files etc, what additional capabilities are available for OS X users?
      • alpha88, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5mcmixxii - did you have to download to anything to get those features? (that includes adobe products)

        They're completely built in with Mac OS X, and they can be viewed in Quick Look. It takes no time to make a PDF of anything, without any extra addons or software. In fact, it took me a mere 3 seconds to make a PDF of this entire Digg entry.
      • senatorpjt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2mcmixxii: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript

        Quartz 2D has been (inaccurately) described as "using PDF to render the screen." isn't technically "rendered in PDF" but the primitives correlate pretty well to it (basically, changed enough to avoid paying royalties), and it's obviously derived from PostScript which PDF is also derived from. This basically means it's (comparatively) trivial to render PDF documents from Quartz code and vice versa.
      • mossblaser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@alpha88
        So it looks like its basically windows left out in the cold for PDF support
    • JQP123, on 07/03/2008, -0/+11MS wanted to add native PDF support to Office 2007 and Vista but Adobe demanded royalties. In response, MS developed their own alternative called XPS. In response, Adobe submitted PDF to the ISO.

      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061120-8254 ...
    • Davers, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1So something being well integrated into OSX means it should be made a standard for all platforms? Last I checked Macs made up less than 10% of the consumer PC market share.
      • lolgamoff, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1PDF integration into OS X is quite useful, I don't see why well done PDF integration shouldn't be made a standard in all other operating systems. It would be like saying, "Well just because mouse pointers work well in Windows doesn't mean it should be made a standard for all platforms." Market share is irrelevant. What works well works well.
  • sea206town, on 07/03/2008, -6/+2Oh no, i wasnt trying to be an ass I just wanted a laymens term break down.
  • tristan55555, on 07/03/2008, -10/+3Best Mac PDF reader - (Open Source) = Skim http://skim-app.sourceforge.net/
    • theutopian, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Why would you need this when it's built into OSX?
      • tristan55555, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Try it and find out. Preview is to Skim as a Civic is to a Ferrari.
    • InorganicMatter, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Best Mac PDF reader = the one included for free
      • tristan55555, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1You have clearly never used Skim and are not in university.
  • bcherup, on 07/03/2008, -12/+2I hate PDF files. >:(
    • senatorpjt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Maybe you should have explained yourself better. I "hate PDF files" when they're used inappropriately. Nothing pisses me off more than having to download and read two-column PDF text-only document on a screen when it could have just been put up as a plain HTML document.
  • sfacets, on 07/03/2008, -7/+1LOL by chance I was looking up Pdf on Wikipedia yesterday, and it already had that Pdf was an ISO standard, so I replied this to a forum post with this info :D
  • Atomic1fire, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Sound?
    Isnt that what the new media html tags are for..
    and that javascript api as well
  • twiztidsinz, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4Anyone know of a good Free (OpenSource or not) PDF Editor?
    I'm using foxit's editor, but it's only a trial.
    • stalefries, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Inkscape can import PDFs, but I'm not sure how good it is. Otherwise, a lot of applications can export (or even just print) to PDF, if that's what you're looking for (but I doubt it).

      Otherwise, you're probably stuck with Foxit or buying Acrobat.
      • Stonekeeper, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Apparently oo.o 3 will have pdf editing.
    • charro, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1This might be a little late but the other way to go is using PDFCreator. It installs as a printer (virtual) and the output instead of being printed on paper goes to a PDF file.
  • jnorris441, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8International Organization for Standardization would be IOS, right?
    • viserov, on 07/03/2008, -0/+19From Wikipedia:

      ISO is not an acronym or initialism for the organization's full name in either official language. Rather, the organization adopted ISO based on the Greek word ἴσος (isos), meaning equal.
    • Clark3934, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Organisation internationale de normalisation
  • BasharTeg, on 07/03/2008, -9/+1Wait what the hell is this crap!!!! We already have an open document format, ODF!!!! All other document formats applying for standardization are unwelcome, especially those offered up by commercial entities!!!! Especially with those formats being proprietary and complicated and difficult to implement, which has introduced breaking changes in their format and increasingly bloated client over the past years of release upon release!!!! Add that to a ridiculously annoying updater that ALWAYS has an update to install when I'm trying to view a document?! And I need the pay version of the client to actually EDIT the document?! And government agencies have dared to release their documents in this proprietary format for years?! This is *****!!!

    Oh wait, it's Adobe, not Microsoft. Nevermind, everything's cool.
    • trogdoor, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5PDF is nothing like ODF or OOXML
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3fail
    • senatorpjt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Don't think of PDF as a "document format." PDF is closer to an image format than a document format - it lies somewhere between. The main purpose of PDF is insuring that a document will be rendered the same whether you're looking at on a PC screen or you have it sent off for mass publication.
      It's basically closer to PostScript than anything. Sort of like a hybrid between a vector/raster image format and display control language.
  • alpha88, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1*loading....*
  • aligourii, on 07/03/2008, -5/+0Wait, so ISO stands for "International Organization for Standardization?"

    Did the laws of an acronym change?
    • Steinr, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3as viserov stated above:
      From Wikipedia:

      ISO is not an acronym or initialism for the organization's full name in either official language. Rather, the organization adopted ISO based on the Greek word ἴσος (isos), meaning equal.
    • diggcommentguy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Its not an acronym. It's based on the greek word isos which means equal. (yes, you can thank wikipedia for that.)
    • xekko, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's to please the French.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organiz ...
  • BetterOffEd, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Anyone know of a good free OCR program for PDFs?

    (Looking to turn unsearchable PDFs into searchable PDFs)

    • domlachowicz, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Xpdf's (or poppler's) pdftotext and pdftohtml programs do a pretty good job.
  • InorganicMatter, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Does this mean Windows and Linux will finally get PDF support built in at the same low level that Mac OS X has it? I love being able to see thumbnails of PDFs.
    • Magnes, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3I see thumbnails of PDFs on my Ubuntu.
    • deadlikeoscar, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This is the second time I have seen a comment like this and I am curious as to what OS X does with PDFs that Ubuntu 8.04 (and probably most other distros) doesn't do? Does a freakin' rainbow come out of the screen when you open it or what? Everything I need to do with a pdf comes with Ubuntu on a fresh install...even thumbnails! Surely the future is here...yawn.
  • juliohm, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2You had me at ISO.
  • 5plic3r, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I hope they eventually make the Adobe Mars Project an ISO standard: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/mars/
  • bingostud722, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1FINALLY
  • thomasprebble, on 07/03/2008, -7/+2***** THE RIAA!
  • spellbunny, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2PDF "is now" an ISO standard.

    thank you.
  • mGARANDEUR1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1SumatraPDF FTW.

    I really do hate the memory munching Adobe reader software.
  • crapmatic, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1This is the same agency that implemented the idea of "ISO 9001 certified companies", so I don't know about this.
  • qutepangy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0That's good news! I find people lean towards more to PDF ebooks than .exe ebooks.
  • maumac, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Kudos to Adobe.

    Of course ultimately they're only pursuing their own interests, but it's definately better to see big corporations relinquishing control over a much desired format, than to see them bribing some countries to get stamped a "standard" they just pulled out of theirs asses (eroding the standards body's credibility in the process, which does no one a favor).
  • zohaibusman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1good news
  • leakus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"Yesteryear" is a cool sounding word. Never heard it before. Would people give me strange looks , if I used it in everyday life?
  • TimDigg, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Microsoft is pure genius...

    Anyone who doesn't get the MS genius here, doesn't get what happened...
  • eddieBelaval, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0STEVE HOLT!!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.