Why ghostscript 2.5?

Article View: comp.lang.postscript

Article #2053

Back to comp.lang.postscript Previous Next

#2053

From: Allan Adler
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:26

12 lines
854 bytes

A few months ago I mentioned that some PostScript guru (whom others quickly
guessed was Don Lancaster) thought that non-Adobe postscripts were
inferior, with Ghostscript being the worst of all. Now I am told (not by him,
but by someone who says he talked to him) that he thinks version 2.5
of Ghostscript is good.

What is different about Ghostscript that suddenly makes it good? I always
thought it was good, but I'm not a guru.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <ARA.92Sep1192615@camelot.ai.mit.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!zurich.ai.mit.edu!ara

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!zurich.ai.mit.edu!ara
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Why ghostscript 2.5?
Message-ID: <ARA.92Sep1192615@camelot.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:26:15 GMT
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Lines: 12