An empty correspondence with the CEO of Adobe Systems

[jdaw1]

On 4th March 2015 a letter was sent to Shantanu Narayen, the CEO of Adobe Systems. A standard email reply came today, saying “With this response, we believe your issue is resolved and have therefore closed your case 0215127971.” That case number contained a scan of my paper letter, and nothing else.

Useless. :-(

FYI, the text of my letter follows.


> Dear Mr Narayen,

> Adobe made a fantastic product. Indeed, the product — PostScript — made Adobe. A small select band of us still use PostScript as a programming language, not just as a machine-generated intermediary between computer and raster image. Indeed, I maintain one large open-source PostScript program, available via www.jdawiseman.com/placemat.html. For precise control of what is on the page PostScript is still my favourite programming language.

> But PostScript is dead. The most recent version, language level 3, was released in 1997. Development of the language seems to have stopped (I have a list of requests for language level 4, but presumably they will never happen). Indeed, as far as I can tell, development of and revenue from Adobe Distiller is negligible (one bug fix and two small UI improvements are wanted, but presumably they will never happen). Part of the reason that Distiller doesn’t sell is that people use the free GhostScript, even though GhostScript isn’t as good: it processes each execform separately; it encodes settransfer in a manner heeded by Acrobat Reader but ignored by Mac Preview; and it ignores some types of call to pdfmark.

> Adobe makes other fabulous products, now sold as a service, and wants customers to believe that Adobe will continue to support them for a very long time. Please help this belief: please give away Distiller, free, for all platforms. Indeed, go further, help people really believe that an Adobe standard is forever: open the source. Allow Apple to maintain the code for the Mac; allow Microsoft to maintain the code for Windows.

> It would cost Adobe nothing; it would gain Adobe a little belief in its software as a service. And it would slightly convenience some users of my PostScript program.

> Thank you.

[tlvp]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:47:43 -0700 (PDT), jdaw1 wrote:

> On 4th March 2015 a letter was sent to Shantanu Narayen, the CEO of Adobe Systems. A standard email reply came today, saying “With this response, we believe your issue is resolved and have therefore closed your case 0215127971.” That case number contained a scan of my paper letter, and nothing else.
>
> Useless. :-(
>
> FYI, the text of my letter follows.
>

> --- [lovely letter, here elided to save space] ---

I'd suspect someone inadvertently neglected to attach the intended
"response" to that email (it's happened to me more often than I'd care to
admit in public), and quite possibly a quick, polite response on your part,
suggesting that the "response" referred to seems not to have gotten itself
attached to / included in the email reply you got, might go a long ways
towards triggering the result you desire. Or so I'd hope :-) .

HTH. Good luck; and cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[ken]

In article <efdd5cd9-9a8f-4bc0...@googlegroups.com>,
jdawi...@gmail.com says...


>GhostScript, even though GhostScript isn?t as good: it processes each

execform separately; it encodes settransfer in a manner heeded by
Acrobat Reader but ignored by Mac Preview;

Minor nitpicks. Ghostscript (more specifically the pdfwrite device) no
longer executes and stores each instance of a form, and hasn't done for
a release or two. The next version will include a still better
implementation which doen't get confused by pdfmarks in the form.

If the settransfer is ignored by Mac Preview, even though its valid,
surely this is a problem with Mac Preview, not pdfwrite ?

> and it ignores some types of call to pdfmark.

True, but not many and shrinking all the time.


Plus, we listen and are still developing the product :-)



Ken

[jdaw1]

> Ghostscript (more specifically the pdfwrite device) no
> longer executes and stores each instance of a form, and hasn't done for
> a release or two.

I had not checked recently. Sorry. And the online versions that I use are typically a few versions behind.

> The next version will include a still better implementation which doen't get confused by pdfmarks in the form.

Hurray!

> If the settransfer is ignored by Mac Preview, even though its valid, surely this is a problem with Mac Preview, not pdfwrite ?

But Preview heeds the Distiller implementation. See:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/NJLAfvN_jwU

[ken]

In article <15318244-a1c5-42c8...@googlegroups.com>,
jdawi...@gmail.com says...

> > If the settransfer is ignored by Mac Preview, even though its valid,
surely this is a problem with Mac Preview, not pdfwrite ?
>
> But Preview heeds the Distiller implementation. See:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/NJLAfvN_jwU

Still, if the transfer function is legal (which I assume it is, since it
works in Reader), the fault is in Mac Preview. Without knowing what
exactly Mac Preview is doign its kind of hard to 'fix' the bug by
altering what pdfwrite produces.



Ken

[ken]

In article <MPG.2f6e2e5cd...@usenet.plus.net>, k...@spamcop.net
says...

FWIW, you are correct that Distiller is pickling the transfer funtion
into the colours in the PDF file, while Ghostscript is preserving the
transfer funtion.

Its surprising how many PDF Readers are unable to handle transfer
functions, I'm disappointed to see that Mac Preview is among them.

But as I said, this is a bug (or at least a missing feature) in Mac
Preview. The PDF produced by Ghostscript/pdfwrite is a better
approximation to the original PostScript than the Distiller output. BTW
I suspect you must have produced this with Distiller set to 'apply'
transfer funcxtions, rather than 'preserve'. I feel sure that if you set
it to 'preserve' you'll see the same behaviour.

It looks like Adobe have changed the default setting of this parameter
over the years.



Ken

[Rod Dorman]

In article <MPG.2f6e30f4...@usenet.plus.net>,

ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>In article <MPG.2f6e2e5cd...@usenet.plus.net>, k...@spamcop.net
>says...
>>
>> In article <15318244-a1c5-42c8...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jdawi...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > > If the settransfer is ignored by Mac Preview, even though its valid,
>> surely this is a problem with Mac Preview, not pdfwrite ?
>> >
>> > But Preview heeds the Distiller implementation. See:
>> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.postscript/NJLAfvN_jwU
>>
>> Still, if the transfer function is legal (which I assume it is, since it
>> works in Reader), the fault is in Mac Preview. Without knowing what
>> exactly Mac Preview is doign its kind of hard to 'fix' the bug by
>> altering what pdfwrite produces.
>
>FWIW, you are correct that Distiller is pickling the transfer funtion
>into the colours in the PDF file, while Ghostscript is preserving the
>transfer funtion.
>
>Its surprising how many PDF Readers are unable to handle transfer
>functions, I'm disappointed to see that Mac Preview is among them.

It also had a problem with the Separation colorspace where it would
just ignore it.

--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

[jdaw1]

> Plus, we listen and are still developing the product :-)

Ken,

Please sir, where is the best place to report a bug in Ghostscript?

Bug. Start at
http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=175&start=913
in which a .ps file distills in a few seconds using Distiller, but 17 minutes with Ghostscript.

So start with code at
http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/placemat/placemat.ps
Quick with distiller; slow with Ghostscript. (Please confirm.)

Then in line circa 284 change
/InlineTitles true def
to
/InlineTitles false def

Then quick with both. So the problem is with something like:
/Helvetica-Bold 96 selectfont (G85) false charpath clip
0 setgray 8 setlinewidth gsave stroke grestore
1 setgray 5 setlinewidth gsave stroke grestore
0 setgray 2 setlinewidth stroke

Please sir, where or to whom should this be reported? And my preferred contact details are at
http://www.jdawiseman.com/author.html

Thank you.

[ken]

In article <b2d991ce-1977-4d1b...@googlegroups.com>,
jdawi...@gmail.com says...

>
> > Plus, we listen and are still developing the product :-)
>
> Ken,
>
> Please sir, where is the best place to report a bug in Ghostscript?

Our Bugzilla bug tracker is located at:

bugs.ghostscript.com

You'll need to open an account in order to report bugs.

Please attach all files required to reproduce the problem (you can
attach files after you open the bug as well). Either PostScript, PCL,
PDF or XPS please, not the original application files (eg Word or
whatever) and a Ghostscript command line which shows the problem.

It would be really helpful to give us the version of Ghostscript and the
platform (there are fields for all this) and if you can minimise the
command line or sample file that would be great too. None of that is
required thoug, just some way to reproduce the problem so we can
investigate it.



Regards,

Ken Sharp

[jdaw1]

Done.
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695906

[ken]

In article <5cff2879-2d3d-424e...@googlegroups.com>,
jdawi...@gmail.com says...
>
> Done.
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695906

And I'll apologise right now for Ray's response, must have been having a
bad day.

[jdaw1]

With Google access to Usenet coming to an end, I want to bump this, to increase the probability that one day it is noticed by Adobe.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 12:58:41 -0800 (PST), jdaw1 wrote:

> With Google access to Usenet coming to an end, I want to bump this, to
> increase the probability that one day it is noticed by Adobe.

I would say, Adobe stopped caring about PostScript a long time ago. It’s
no longer the money-earner it once was.

[David Newall]

I think they care very much. PostScript is very much part of their
business. Many of their proprietary file types embed it.

What I think Adobe don't care about is how, or even if, Google engage
with hobbyists or other randoms like us. Other than their advertising
platform and their search engine, Google are irrelevant to Adobe.

I take that view, too. Google neither started USENET, nor control it,
and no longer even participate. News of USENET's death is greatly
exaggerated.

[David Newall]

On 26/1/24 14:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:40:27 +1100, David Newall wrote:

> PostScript is very much part of their
> business. Many of their proprietary file types embed it.

But there’s no money to be made from it any more. It’s a commodity.