Kevin Kofler wrote: >> but also programs like kdvi, which seems to me a completely unnecessary >> replacement for xdvi, which always works perfectly for me. > Actually, KDvi is dead, it's part of Okular these days. As for xdvi, > that's completely obsolete and uses some ancient toolkit that looks like > crap (AFAIK, there's actually a choice between Xaw, Xaw3D and Motif, the > current Fedora package is built against Xaw3D). I think it's great that > you can view DVIs in Okular and I don't see the point of using an ancient > Xaw or Motif app instead. Well, xdvi works fine for me, and brings up the TeX/LaTeX page much faster than okular. Last time I tried, okular (or maybe kdvi) did not bring out Postscript embedded in .dvi files properly; but that was some time ago. Personally, I don't see any advantage in one program being able to do a lot of different things. Processing a .dvi file seems to me a very specific requirement, and I actually prefer a program that "does one thing, and does it well", as Ken Thompson said. I also find xpdf is much faster than Adobe's PDF reader, though that is a slightly different issue. > I also use Konqueror as my main browser (i.e. at least 99% of the time I > browse the web). I guess I don't share the KDE philosophy, which seems to be to re-invent the wheel as kwheel. Unless there is actually something wrong with firefox, it seems to me simpler to use a program available on all the systems I know. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
