Subject: Postscript, Copyrights and other Technion Annoyances

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:28:34 +0300 (IDT)

This is going to be a rather long discussion on one of the
pseudo-beurocratic annoyances I encounter as being a Technion Student. It
involves general discussion of copyrights issues and cross-platform
standard, so it may interest the general Hackers-IL public.

The course in question is called "Image Processing and Analysis" (046200)
. It is given by the Electrical Engineering Department which I am a
student of, and its homepage is http://tiger.technion.ac.il/~ee046200/.

The course book is not available in the "Library of a Dican" which rents
books for the course of an entire semester, and there is a very small
number of its copies around the Technion. Thus, all we have beside the
T.A. sessions (which are given in MS-Word format) are the Class Lectures.
There is a booklet containing them available for sale at the faculty's
"Dalpak", but we were told the material on-line is more up-to-date.

The caveat is that it is also an MS-Word document in origin, but was
converted to Postscript by defining an "Apple LaserWriter" printer and
printing it to a file. However, those who had experience with producing
PostScript documents from a Windows Application using this method will
know that the documents it produces are not well-formed PostScript
documents. (Some of them do not even begin with the string "%!PS" !)

Because of that, some configurations of ghostscript for Windows and Linux
do not render them and/or print them well. My partner could not print them
at his account on the faculty's NT Farm. I managed to do that, but I could
not do that at home with my ghostscript for Windows configuration. Since
my printer does not work with Linux ( a long story but that's a fact) I
was almost stuck with no way to print them.

What I eventaully did was convert them to PDF while running Linux, and
then print them using Adobe Acrobat for Win32, which is generally a more
stable program than ghostscript. However, I realized that several of the
formulae were lost somewhere along the way and I could not find them
printed on the page.

There are now two questions which should be answered:

1. Why are the files not distributed in MS-Word format in the first place?

2. Why were not they converted directly to PDF using the more stable Adobe
Acrobat? (The renderer not the reader).

The answer to question #2 is probably ignorance. The answer to question
#1 is more complex from what I learned from one of the T.A's. Apparently
the lecturer who wrote the lecture notes wish to publish them as a book or
something like that and does not want this material to be pyrated without
his permission. Thus, he figured that not publishing their Word source
will prevent that. In fact, the T.A. told me that he himself does not have
the Word original.

This is all very well, only that students like me and my partner directly
suffer from it. This seems silly considering the following facts:

1. The MIT university has began implementing the "Open Courseware"
initiative which will make all of its courses' material avaialble on-line
under an Open Content license. I would not go so far as to suggest the
Technion should make its material Open Content (it's not a bad idea, IMO,
but not compulsary) but at least make the source or something else which
is usable available. Especially, if it does not have handy copies of the
course's book for the students' body.

For more information regarding "MIT Open Courseware" consult the following
page:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/ocw-facts.html

2. Some parallel technion courses already supply their material in
Microsoftish formats:

* Linear Electronic Circuits:
http://tiger.technion.ac.il/~linear/

which has Word lecture notes by Dr. Daniel Lubzens. (and also has a book
avaialble in the "Library of the Dikan")

* Strcuture of Operating Systems:

http://tiger.technion.ac.il/courses/046209/

Again, the exercise MS-Word files and the PowerPoint lecture notes are
avaialble on-line and both of its books is available in the "Library of
the Dican".

* In the CS front, Prof. Shimon Even has made his book about Graph
Algorithms publicly avaialble online in Word format.

3. I do not think making the files available in Word format will enable
pyrating them. They are still copyrighted material, and most Technion
Students are aware of copyright laws. I can't imagine any situation, in
which a student will do anything with them beside viewing them on-line,
printing them, or quoting them.

At present, their figures can be retrieved using a screen capture program
(assuming ghostview works properly ...) and the text can be copied letter
by letter, so it should not be a major concern.

If you ask me, a course without up-to-date usable material cannot be
considered a 21st century course, and "Image Processing and Analysis" aims
to be one. Meanwhile,  the students suffer from the incorrect PostScript
and a they spend a lot of time and energy on what could have been their
studies.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

A more experienced programmer does not make less bugs. He just realizes
what went wrong more quickly.

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:59:19 +0300 (IDT)

Hi

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> The course book is notavailable in the "Library of a Dican" which rents

The printer driver adds some PJL (in the case of HP laserjets) or whatever
instaructions, so this is not a pure postscript file. Those can be easily
removed. This is the least of your problems.

Try a more recent ghostscript.

Aladin ghostscript 7 is now availble. And also , 6.51 is now availble
under GPL. Note that Aladin ghostscript can be freely used and modified.
Linux distros don't include it because it has limitations on commercial
distribution.

More recent versions of ghostscript can better handle the postscript
produced by windows' postscript drivers.

> formulae were lost somewhere along the way and I could not find them

How do you convert them from postscript to PDF on linux? through
shostscript's ps2pdf?

windows' ghostview uses the same backend basically (ghostscript), so it
can surely be tweaked to view the file.

> Acrobat? (The renderer not the reader).

Acrobat/distiller costs money. 

You can try to use ghostscript's ps2pdf, but in the case of
windows-originated documents, it will probably not produce good results.

> the lecturer who wrote the lecture notes wish to publish them asa book or
> avaialble in the"Library of the Dikan")
> 
> pyrating them. They are still copyrightedmaterial, and most Technion

Text can generally be extracted from PS/PDF files (although for hebrew
this is not so simple, and this is also visual hebrew text, I believe)

The main concern is usually not of other students pirating the material,
but of other course authors etc.

I have tried making the same arguments in the course I am a TA of, but
this was the main argument that the others used against supplying the
"sources".

> and a they spend a lot of time and energy on what could have been their

Hmmm... 

PDF is close to optimal in terms of "spend less time". Good PDF readers
are widely availble for many platfoms, and it is generally possible to
assume that a PDF docukment can be read by anyone.

Postscript is slightly less portable (and takes up more space, at least
the one pruduced by windows: does it contain bitmaps of the whole pages
? ;) ).

But source formats take more effort to produce a readable copy: with
MS-Word you have the usual versions-mixup. With Latex you'll find out that
you're using some non-standard package, etc.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir

---

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:54:38 +0300 (IDT)

There is another considration - accessibility of the course material to
deaf students.
Deaf students cannot benefit from the oral part of the lectures, without
using also the written materials.

[... snipped ...]
> "Dalpak", but we were told the material on-line is more up-to-date.

[... snipped ...]

> will prevent that. In fact, the T.A. told me that he himself does not have

[... snipped ...]

> and a they spend a lot of time and energy on what could have been their

                                             --- Omer
There is no IGLU Cabal.  Material, which was needed by the former Cabal
members, turned out to be inaccessible to them due to various silly
reasons, such as excessive colorfulness (color blindness), sound
(deafness), blinking stuff (people sensitive to epilepsy attacks),
specialized formats (no open source software to process those formats).

WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:16:45 +0300 (IDT)

> produced by windows' postscript drivers.

I believe the ghostscript I have at home is more or less up to date. I
don't know if it's the version 7 or not, but it's there. In any case, like
I said, my partner and I have the same version of PostScript installed on
the NT farms computers, yet I can print them and he cannot.

> How do you convert them from postscript to PDF on linux? through

Yes.

> can surely be tweaked to view the file.

Well, whatever. I know the "ps2pdf" method works and the other does not.

> Acrobat/distiller costs money.

Can't the Technion afford to buy a global license so it will be a
compromise between the needs of the Students and the copyrights "needs"
of the lecturers'?

Adobe used to publicize Acrobat/Distiller in the splash screen of
their reader, which means they intend it for the general audience. Thus,
it should not cost too much. (my guess is $500 or so).

I know of another lecturer (in "Computer Networks Design") who rendered
his PowerPoint lectures into PDF. I'm not sure what methodology he used to
do it.

> windows-originated documents, it will probably not produce good results.

Like I said, I lost a couple of formulae in the process.

> but of other course authors etc.

The lecture notes are in Hebrew, so it would not be realistic to assume
that course authors abroad will pirate it. So, are they afraid of
lecturers from TAU, BGU or HUJI or Bar-Ilan (or any of the colleges in
Israel which teach EE) copying it? If I were a lecturers, I would be glad
if my lectures could be useful like that. But I understand why some people
are paranoid regarding their intellectual property.

Too bad the students suffer from that.

> this was the main argument that the others used against supplying the

I can suggest you that if you have the time, you should write your own
material and make its source publicly avaialble. I'm not a T.A. at the
moment, but I follow this Scheme for the Haifux lectures.

> the one pruduced by windows: does it contain bitmaps of the whole pages

No, but there are plenty of bitmaps as it is an "Image Processing and
Analysis" course.

> you're using some non-standard package, etc.

The best is to have both the source (MS-Word or LaTeX or HTML or whatever)
and a final document in a well-formed PDF document. Naturally, I am a
little distressed that in some courses, I only have the Word document,
which I cannot view on Linux. (I have Windows at home, but I sometimes use
Linux)

Until then - may the source be with you.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

There is no IGLU Cabal. Its members now spend its time trying to
reverse-engineer a non well-formed PostScript file back into its Word
source.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2001 09:24:39 +0300

> but of other course authors etc.

I still fail to understand how Word files will help them in that.
making it easier to cut'n'paste paragraphs from this lecturer's notes
directly into theirs? I find it rather pathetic.

As you mentioned yourself, any pirate who has a graduate student with
half a brain working for him will learn how to use ps2ascii (not
perfect, but helps) quickly enough.

> Postscript is slightly less portable 

In what sense? In the sense that PS produced on Windows is not
guaranteed to be a real PS?

Last time I checked on Windows neither a PDF reader or a PostScript
reader comes with the system (maybe I am not up-to-date), Linux comes
with both, in a few incarnations, and acroread is also downloadable.

> (and takes up more space, at least
> ? ;) ).\

The only explanation. In my experience, PDF files, especially those
with not very fancy text, are *many times*, sometimes 50 times larger
than PostScript, with the same text. Word files are usually the
bulkiest (and don't even think of including a figure produced with
Visio!). Converting .doc to .pdf to .ps you are likely to save disk
space and download time progressively.

> MS-Word you have the usual versions-mixup. 

Of add-on inconsistencies. Produce a doc with MS Equation Editor and
send it to someone who does not have it. Bummer.

> With Latex you'll find out that you're using some non-standard
> package, etc.

That is usually not a big issue as these packages are readily
available. You can include non-standard stuff with your sources, and
if you distribute postscript, the problem goes away.

An important, IMHO, point is that there is no comparison whatsoever in
the quality of output produced by TeX and Word - they are in completely
different leagues.

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | [email-masked] 
If it ain't broken, it hasn't got enough features yet.

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:58:58 +0300 (IDT)

> using also the written materials.

It is accessible. You can always send this file to a postscript printer,
and it will be printed properly.

It _should_ also be availble for viewing with ghostview. And it generally
is, after some tweaking.

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:27:15 +0300 (IDT)

[ A bit technical and off-topic ]

> the NT farms computers, yet I can print them and he cannot.

Linux distors come with GNU ghostscript. Until recently the most
up-to-date version of ghostscript availble under the GPL was 5.50, which
is quite old.

Generally Aladin release new versions under their own Aladin license
(which is rather permissive, BTW. You can surely install it on your home
system) and release older versions under the GNU GPL. Those are known as
GNU Ghostscript.

> Well, whatever. I know the "ps2pdf" method works and the other does not.

Try using ps2pdf.bat from the ghostscript directory on the NT
workstation...

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:18:53 +0300

> documents. (Some of them do not even begin with the string "%!PS" !)

Most of these problems can be fixed with relative ease, by someone with
enough Postscript knowledge. Don't you have any such person in the EE
department?
Postscript isn't dark magic, it's a programming language, and a nice and
simple one at that (once you've read the book), and if there are errors
they can be corrected. Correcting the well-formedness, as you call it (these
"%!PS" and other %% comments) is even simpler - you just have to follow
Adobe's EPSF (encapsulated postscript file) guidelines (these are available
freely on the web, if I remember correctly), and all they do is help programs
like ghostview know where pages start, and so on (the printer just ignores
them).

> 1. Why are the files not distributed in MS-Word format in the first place?

I always find myself fighting the opposite battle: people are distributing
documents for me to read in MS-Word, and I insist that I be sent postscript
(or PDF) files. It's not only that fact that it is a hated Microsoft format
(it is part of the problem, but not all of it) - I also prefer to get a
postscript file over some TeX file I need to compile on my own.

Why? Because unlike the case in software, in documents you rarely want to
get the source of a document. You want to read it as the author has intented
for it to look, not modify it yourself. You don't want to worry whether you
have the same version of MS-Word as the author (this is *always* a problem
with MS-Word). You don't want to worry whether you have the appropriate fonts
and/or software installed. When somebody sends me a document I want to only
read, I want it to be in a hardcopy format, like Postscript (though pdf,
dvi, etc., are also fine in decreasing order of preferance).

> The answer to question #2 is probably ignorance. The answer to question

I completely disagree.

Postscript is an excellent and very flexible format. It is very stable.
I see absolutely no preference to PDF over Postscript in this regard - Windows
could botch up the creation of files in either of these formats, and it
shouldn't botch up any of them (I have postscript files I created years ago
and they still work - there's no reason why a ghostscript should have trouble
reading a certain postscript file).

PDF has certain advantages over Postscript, roughly in the following areas:
 1. Simpler and much less flexible language, meaning that PDF readers can
    be simpler than Postscript readers (but once a free Postscript reader
    exists, I consider this irrelevant).
 2. Better document layout (specifying where individual pages are, etc., so
    that in a 1000 page document one can jump to page 456 without reading the
    entire file)
 3. Interactive features, like hyperlinks.
 4. Better support for making modifications to documents (but this is still
    not a word processor format!)

I think none of these issues are at all relevant in the case at hand, so
I don't see how not choosing PDF means ignorance...

> will prevent that. In fact, the T.A. told me that he himself does not have

This is rather silly - who is he afraid of? If he's afraid of other authors
copying his work, they can still do it from the Postscript (or even a single
printout!), perhaps with slightly more work. If he's afraid of students
printing the free file instead of buying the book, why isn't he afraid that
they will print the PS file? I think someone thinking like you assume this
lecturer thinks would not have published the PS file at all, and instead
sold the printouts at Michlol or something.

I think is quite possible that this lecturer is less sinister than you think.
He wanted to provide the document in a single format that anyone could read
without needing to buy special software (and didn't really want people to
modify the text), and Postscript simply fit the bill.

> avaialble in the "Library of the Dikan")

Again, I don't see how this is better than supplying Postscript, unless you
really intend to edit his book, change its font, or stuff like that. Most
(if not all) people just want to read the book as the author intended.

Last time I checked, owning a copy of Microsoft Word wasn't a prerequisite
in registering to the Technion... (don't tell me about going to the Technion's
lab to read it - if I wanted to sit in the technion and read a book, why
not just go to the Library and do it?)

> Algorithms publicly avaialble online in Word format.

Really?? Where can I get it?
I've been trying to buy his book (I don't even mind paying the $50), but it
(ISBN 0914894218) is out of print. I'd kill to have that Word file :)

> and a they spend a lot of time and energy on what could have been their

When I was studying math in the Technion (I finished my BA about 7 years ago),
almost none of the courses had materials like you describe. We would go to
the lectures and write down what the teacher said (I realise how this could
be problematic for deaf students...), and if we needed more information
(usually we didn't!) we would go to the library and look at the text-books,
usually not in Hebrew and not written in the Technion. Actually, it wasn't
so bad... We managed...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |    Wednesday, Jun 13 2001, 22 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Drink varnish and you'll get a lovely
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |finish.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:15:28 +0300 (IDT)

> enough Postscript knowledge. Don't you have any such person in the EE

I suppose there are several members or students of the EE faculty who know
PostScript well enough to do that. I just started learning PostScript a
few weeks ago (out of necessity) and I'm not sure if I know how to do
that.

The common "Joe Random Technion EEer" cannot do that on his own as most
EE Students are only familiar with C and Matlab. (and some even have
problems with either or both of these languages).

> like ghostview know where pages start, and so on (the printer just ignores

Yet another thing to learn, which everyday students don't know.

> postscript file over some TeX file I need to compile on my own.

I did not say he should not distribute it as PostScript or PDF. I said,
just that it would be better if:

1. They were also available as Word files.
2. They are well-formed ones.

> dvi, etc., are also fine in decreasing order of preferance).

Actually, I usually like to have the source to the document and most
everyday people (who distribute files as MS-Word between them and
themselves) agree with me. Why? Let's assume that I'm working on an
assignment along with my course's partner. If he gave it to me as a
PostScrtipt file, I would not be able to change it: correct typos and
mistakes, add new sections, fix the style and alignment, etc.

On the other hand with a Word file (I'll use Word files as an example but
it also appplies to LaTeX or whatever) I can do all that extrafine.
Moreover, it is more easier to copy and paste portions out of the source
document, and it is generally easier to handle. Business People and Common
Folks also find the sources better from similar reasons. If for example,
you wish to report typos to the author, you can mark it as RED and add a
comment. Then, the author can look for a RED marking and then correct the
typos. I could go on, but I think you got the point.

> reading a certain postscript file).

I did not say PostScript is not a good format, but it is a well-known fact
that the Windows' PostScript printer driver abuses it. Do you care to
write a decent PostScript printer driver for Windows? If such a thing
existed, the world would have been a much better place.

> I don't see how not choosing PDF means ignorance...

The reason I prefer PDF is because Acrobat Reader is much more stable and
reliabe than ghostscript, and I'm not aware of any other PostScript viewer
for Windows. Or at least not one that is free (as in free beer). PDF is
the standard for distributing hard-copy documents, and I can send it to
somebody working on a Windows, a Mac or UNIX without encountering too many
problems, and without him asking me what to do with this file.

PostScript on the other hand is something most Windowish people will have
no idea what to do with, as they never heard about it.

> they will print the PS file?

Actually, the PS files are intended for students to print. Whether, they
can be printed easily is a different question, but they are meant to be
printed.

> I think someone thinking like you assume this

It is possible that there are Technion-wide or EE Faculty-wide regulations
which specify that if a book is available in an electronic format, then it
should be made available on-line.

Some of the courseware of the EE faculty is written in hand (E.g: That of
"Intro to DSP", which is the pre-requisite for "Image Processing and
Analysis"), in which case it cannot be distributed on the web. But if it
is, then maybe it has to be.

> modify the text), and Postscript simply fit the bill.

Why not PDF then? And why not a well-formed document of either format?

If he had been such a benevolent person, he would have gone the trouble of
providing us with a valid document, not one that we have to deal with so
many idiosyncrecies just to print.

> not just go to the Library and do it?)

The EE faculty of the Technion has an NT farm, which is publicly available
to all undergraduate students, and Word is installed there. So, in the
event that you don't have word, you can use it there.

I too don't like the fact that the files are not available in
PostScript/PDF format from the course's site, because that way I can't
view them when I'm working on a UNIX workstation. But that is a different
issue.

> (ISBN 0914894218) is out of print. I'd kill to have that Word file :)

http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~algs/EvenBook/evenbook.html

You can find the link at the "Intro to Graph Algorithms" course web-site.

Actually, every chapter is distributed as a separate word-file. Or a
PostScript file for that matter.

The funny thing is that I don't think he wrote it in Word, but the Word is
fully functional and has embedded pictures and equations.

Is there a functional LaTeX to Word coverter out there? I'd kill to have
it. (;-))

> usually not in Hebrew and not written in the Technion. Actually, it wasn't

So you studied starting 11 years ago and finisihed 7 years ago? Well,
welcome to the standard of 2001:

I require a course to fullfill at least one of those criteria:

1. To have written material available at the site.
2. Ditto for a leaflet that we can buy at the counter.
3. To have a book in the Dican Library.
4. To have a book that can be bought in Mikhlol for a reasonable price.
5. To be handed leaflets that summarize the course, in the course of the
semester.

Otherwise, I don't see how I can study in a course like that, purely out
of my lecture and exercise notes. It was done, but I'd rather have some
hard material at hand, too.

There is a reason why MIT initiated the "Open Courseware" initiative and
that is because they saw that courses all around the world where going in
such a direction anyways. And to have a wealth of information available to
students from the web-sites of courses all around the world is a good idea
<tm>.

I realize things were different in the past, but I think the situation
today, that everything is going to be available in an Electronic format,
is a very good development, and soon students will expect to have it so.

People used to survive without electricity or running water, but unless
you are going on a hiking trip, one usually expects to have them. So
progress is not all bad. ;-)

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2001 10:56:56 +0300

> mistakes, add new sections, fix the style and alignment, etc.

Shlomi, it's a different issue. You are talking about co-operative
development (code or docs, doesn't matter). It does not apply to
documents that are distributed for imformation only, such as papers
that you download from the 'net, or the lecture notes in question.
There is no reason why you should modify those. Moreover, the document
author may want to prevent you from modifying it (easily).

> it also appplies to LaTeX or whatever) I can do all that extrafine.

Word is, in my experience, very poorly suited for collaboration. Too
many things depend on the exact version and configuration. I often
can't read (let alone modify) Word files that my colleagues send me,
for all sorts of weird reasons. LaTeX is very portable, on the other
hand. I haven't seen an unreadable LaTeX/dvi/ps file for years.

I consider Word maybe a suitable tool to write an informal
letter. It's totally unsuitable for serious documents (for lack of
usability, modularity, compatibility, quality of output). I am not
saying it cannot be used at all for that purpose, just that it causes
too much pain.

> http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~algs/EvenBook/evenbook.html

Are you sure it is the whole book? Was the book 64 pages?

> it

I could not make latex2rtf work properly. latex2html seems to be
partly functional, and html files can be opened by Word and then saved
as .doc.

> of my lecture and exercise notes. 

Generations of students, including Nadav and myself (I am probably
quite a bit older - my BSc/MSc years were in the 80ties) studied like
that. I consider myself quite well educated, and judging by Nadav's
postings (we've never met, have we?), so was he. Of course, besides
lecture and exercise notes there were always books and papers.

For your sake, and that of your course mates, I hope you do write
notes at the lectures, not relying on the published notes
entirely. And you do attend the lectures, right? Students' notes are
highly individual, and there is usually ample time during a lecture to
think and write down your thoughts. That does help later on.

> is a very good development, and soon students will expect to have it

I agree with that. The danger is that reliance on new technology
should not come at the expense of "hands-on" knowledge and skills.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:41:33 +0300

> mistakes, add new sections, fix the style and alignment, etc.

But the case of working on a file with a partner is obviously very different
from getting a book from your teacher, isn't it? Would you make "corrections"
in your teacher's book, or fix his style? You may, but usually you wouldn't
even consider it.
It's similar to the way the beaurocrats in the company I work for send me
files in Microsoft Office formats. I get official mails and even advertising
brochures (e.g., a new Orange deal) in such formats. Why? Whould I want to
change Orange's brochure to fit my style? I doubt it :)

Surely the best thing is to have multiple formats, such as having both
Word and Postscript (or Latex and PDF, or whatever), so we can have the
best of both worlds.

> no idea what to do with, as they never heard about it.

I have no idea about the stability of ghostscript on Windows (in Linux it's
prety stable...) but note that as far as I know neither PDF nor Postscript
are supported in Windows unless you install some additional software (Acroread
or Ghostscript) - so typical Windows users will have not heard of neither
format, actually.

> many idiosyncrecies just to print.

PDF is a newer format, and the lecturer may not have even heard of it. He
might not have known how to output it from his Word source (how do you do
it, by the way? Is there a PDF printer driver for Windows? I honestly wouldn't
know how to do it myself, other than using ghostscript's pdf2ps...)

I think the fact that his Postscript document is buggy is something he
obviously didn't intend. Perhaps contacting him and asking him to fix it
(e.g., by "printing" it again with a newer Windows), would do the trick.

> event that you don't have word, you can use it there.

Exactly my point - if someone wants to go to a certain specific place to
read a book, the library is already available ;) The benefit of reading an
online book should be in being able to reading it in your own home without
having to pay a fortune for actual books.

> You can find the link at the "Intro to Graph Algorithms" course web-site.

Wow :)

> Is there a functional LaTeX to Word coverter out there? I'd kill to have

According to the Postscript file, it was generated from "whole.dvi",
implying that it was written in LaTeX. It also has the "LaTeX Look". So
they either have a converter, or a converter from a third format, or
somebody worked hard on manual conversion.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun 14 2001, 23 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Promises are like babies: fun to make,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |but hell to deliver.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:56:20 +0300

> somebody worked hard on manual conversion.

Just a correction: it appears that the "All these chapters together"
Postscript file was generated from the TeX, while the individual chapter
Postscript files were generated from Word. Strange...

Guess which of the Postscript file sets looks better :)

P.S. I don't have the printed book here, so I wonder if someone has the
book and can check: This postscript file only contains 6 chapters and 64
pages. I remember the book wasn't very fat, but not that it was so short...
Is it really the entire book?

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun 14 2001, 23 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A computer program does what you tell it
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |to do, not what you want it to do.

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:58:39 +0300 (IDT)

> think and write down your thoughts. That does help later on.

When you have the published notes, you can always add your own remarks on
them at the time of the class.

Actually, having the course notes (or at least slides) in advance helps
very much, because the student can focus on listening, instead of on
writing.

Having the notes in advance is good, because in the time of the lecture
you can write your personal notes on them.

The downside is that if you don't write anything, there is a better chance
that you become a passive listener. But that can also happen if you are
busy writing.

> should not come at the expense of "hands-on" knowledge and skills.

What skill are you refering to? handwriting?

Actually, I find it quite a relief when I can actually spend most of the
lecture actively listening, instead of spending the time with writing
notes. I have a problem with other people's notes, because they always
miss some spesific points that I personally find important.

---

From: Dan Kenigsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:41:17 +0300 (IDT)

> know how to do it myself, other than using ghostscript's pdf2ps...)

With pdf I tend to get much fewer errors. That's a fact.
For example, Even's Chapter1.ps wouldn't show on my ghostview.
I had to distill it into a pdf and then it showed.

And Nadav,
I think I remember they said they have an option for "view only" (no print)
pdfs. Maybe this anti-free statement is  where your resent towards pdf comes
from.

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:53:55 +0300 (IDT)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:

> > might not have known how to output it from his Word source(how do you do

Mind you, ghostview is a resonably capable pdf viewer in its own right (it
transparantly applies pdf2ps before viewing the file).

For instance, after distill has "de-obfuscated" the postscript, you will
be able to read it pretty well with ghostview. 

And that mechanism in PDF is implemented by adobe's viewer (acrobat
reader). Nothing stops you from using, say [a patched] xpdf to do just the
same.

BTW: there is one advantage for postscript that you forget:

cat file.ps |lpr

(and I actually used this method in the past, after noticing that I can
also access files of the web sites of courses through NFS)

Keep in mind that the lecturer probably hasa postscript printer readily
availble, so maybe this makes postscript considered by him a more
"immediate" documentation form.

As for keeping multiple formats: It is nice, if you can afford to (and
make sure all the copies are in sync.). Its an extra work, and not all
people want (or should) bother.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:52:56 +0300

> I had to distill it into a pdf and then it showed.

Again, Chapter1.ps comes from MS-Word and Windows, and it probably has the
same bugs as people mentioned earlier. The fact that the idiots at Microsoft
cannot generate proper Postscript code is not a fault of the Postscript
format. As I said, I don't even know how to output PDF format in Microsoft
Word (do you know how?), so I don't see how this can be viewed as a
benefit of PDF...

Actually, the postscript format is much more flexible than PDF, and it is
easier to write a "legal" postscript file than it is to write a legal PDF
file. The fact that Microsoft botched up even this simple Postscript writing
is purely their own fault, and has nothing to do with the Postscript format.
Didn't Microsoft fix this bug in their latest drivers??

BTW, as a few people have already mentioned postscript files can easily be
printed on postscript printers, while printing PDF files requires special
software (that are free as in "chinam", true, but still requires installation).

> pdfs. Maybe this anti-free statement is  where your resent towards pdf comes

I have nothing against PDF. I don't think it's bad. But I don't think it's
better than Postscript either. I think Adobe have learned a few lessons from
Postscript and changed their focus a little (see my previous email about the
important differences between PDF and PS, as I see them). These differences
make PDF files easier to read and process (so that, for example, a drawing
program could import a general PDF file without needed to write hundreds
of thousands of lines of codes for running general Postscript code - this
was a big problem with Postscript), but these issues aren't relevant to
distribution of books.

The "view only" (as well as encryption of the text) features in PDF are
based on the (false) assumption that the PDF viewers will adhere to these
flags and refus to print a "view only" file. Since PDF is an open format
(Dan, you're welcome to come over and see my copy of Adobe's PDF book.
BTW, that book comes with a CD with the entire book in PDF format ;)),
this will obviously not remain the case as people write alternatives to
"acroread".  Already stuff like xpdf, ghostview, etc., can show PDF and/or
convert it to postscript for printing.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun 14 2001, 23 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |If at first you don't succeed, skydiving
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |is not for you.

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2001 16:48:33 +0300

> them at the time of the class.

True. I certainly agree with that.

> that you become a passive listener. But that can also happen if you are

I suppose so. But you can't easily write down mechanically what the
lecturer says. You must think when you take down notes. I hardly ever
write down what the lecturer says (as far as university courses are
concerned, most of that is in the books anyway), but rather what I
think. Well, maybe I am wired that way.

> What skill are you refering to? handwriting?

No. I am referring to knowledge of how things are done as opposed to
reliance on, say, a computer application. I recall, for instance,
teaching Physics lab at TAU - the first year. One of the main emphases
was on analysing and processing experimental data. In particular,
students were taught to do linear regression by hand. There were
always students who said, "Why should we do that? We will just type
the data into Excel and click on the button." That's the modern
technology solution, but the approach relies on, khm, Microsoft (read:
modern technology) too much. I used to suggest doing the regression by
hand and comparing the results to Excel. Exercise for the reader: what
happened?

The point I tried to make to the students was, it's important to know
how the solution works, what is going on, and whether the readily
available solution is applicable to the problem at hand.

> I have a problem with other people's notes, because they always

That's exactly my point. Notes are individual, and that's important.

---

From: Oleg Goldshmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2001 16:51:28 +0300

> BTW: there is one advantage for postscript that you forget:

There is another:

lpr file.ps
;-)

In fact, when you send a PDF file to the printer, I believe (correct
me if I am wrong) it is converted to PS because that's what the
(postscript) printer actually understands.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:19:12 +0300 (IDT)

> author may want to prevent you from modifying it (easily).

Hmmmpf. But since the facts say that Word cannot convert to PostScript
well without using Adobe Acrobat/Distiller, then it would make sense to
keep them as Word files. Unless the man who does the conversion takes the
effort Nadav describes and produces a well-formed and portable PostScript
or PDF out of it.

Something everybody and his mother can view with Adobe Acrobat or any
other PDF viewer.

> saying it cannot be used at all for that purpose, just that it causes

That's an implementation problem - a very big implementation problem, but
I was talking about the principle. The documents which I hand as homework
assignments are written in Hebrew, so I have to use Word for that. Maybe
one day I'll switch to LaXeT ( I heard the Hebrew support is not very good
there) or to HTML with logical Hebrew and MathML (gvim, anyone?) but until
then Word will have to do.

But I suppose that it will take a long time before someone will know how
to handle such a document, and everybody I study with knows how to use
Word.

For the record, I can testify that I used WordPerfect 5.1 and WordPerfect
6.0 for DOS and liked them more than I like any of the numerous versions
of Word I used. I liked their "Reveal Codes" feature, I liked the fact
that they were non-WYSIWYG and just highlighted characters based on their
style. And I liked the fact that they were very lightweight programs. (Can
Word2000 run on an XT? WP5.1 could.)

WP6.0 also had a WYSIWYG mode, which was sometimes useful, but it seems
that the new WordPerfects for Linux contain only it, and the highlighted
text mode is no longer available. That's a shame, IMO, because I liked it
a lot. But who can fight the WYSIWYG buzzword...

The answer is LaTeX, which I did not have any experience with it yet, but
seems very nice on the surface.

I like Excel though, and think it's a very good SpreadSheet program.
Better than Quattro Pro for DOS, anyways. Thus, Microsoft are capable of
doing things right, but obviously have not done so in Word.

> Are you sure it is the whole book? Was the book 64 pages?

I have no idea. You can ask Prof. Even if it is indeed so. Or maybe the
book had smaller pages.

> partly functional, and html files can be opened by Word and then saved

But will it preserve all the formulas and stuff?

> lecture and exercise notes there were always books and papers.

But there are a lot of students in the EE faculty (1000 in total IINM) and
unless the books are available in the "Library of the Dean" there aren't
enough for everybody. So, either the Technion should but a lot of books
and lend them to Students, or he should have readily available course
material.

> entirely.

If there are published notes and they are detailed enough, I usually sit
at the lectures with them on my desk, and listen to the lecturer
explaining it. If he writes something new that doesn't appear there or
sais a good comment, I write it down.

However, in such courses I don't usually write as much in the notebook as
in courses, which don't have lecture notes, or such of a bad quality.

>And you do attend the lectures, right? Students' notes are

I don't think students know less if the course material is available on
the web. In fact, I think they will have an easier time and could invest
more time in doing homework, rehearsing it, etc.

Or maybe I did not understand what "hands-on" mean? Can you elaborate?

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: Tzafrir Cohen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:55:58 +0300 (IDT)

> Something everybody and his mother can view with Adobe Acrobat or any

If you convert it using ghostscript (ps2pdf) the result will be good
enough, but may be much larger. So you can live without adobe.

> then Word will have to do.

Use LyX (and the more decent support for LaTeX2e/babel). Works great. Much
better than word, IMHO.

The advantage of LyX over plain LaTeX is that you can see the formulas
that you write. If yo have a series of complex equations, it is helpful.

> to handle such a document, and everybody I study with knows how to use

Ditto for LyX (except that on windows you currntly need an X server)

> style. And I liked the factthat they were very lightweight programs. (Can

"LyX is the first WYSIWYM word processor"

> I like Excel though, and think it's avery good SpreadSheet program.

> But will it preserve all the formulas and stuff?

LaTex2HTML simply conevrts them to bitmaps...

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:46:18 +0300 (IDT)

> enough, but may be much larger. So you can live without adobe.

Like I said, I did such a thing and it didn't came out very well - I got
lost characters and all. My guess is that because the PostScript file was
not well-formed, the PDF did not came out very well either.

My guess is that Acrobat/Distiller will produce better results, because
the Adobe people know how to convert something to PDF or PostScript better
than the Microsoft guys. (who wrote the stupid PostScript printer driver
for Windows)

> that you write. If yo have a series of complex equations, it is helpful.

Maybe I will. But does Lyx has a reveal codes feature in which I will be
able to write it in LaTeX and see the results immidiately? If I have to
use the mouse-based equations editor to edit equations, than it is as bad
as Word. But if it can serve as a real-time previewer to what I write,
than it could be excellent as it combines the best of the WYSIWYG and
source code worlds.

Another thing: what I would like to do when writing LaTeX is to use
logical styles, that the LaTeX interpreter will translate into visual
ones. When I'm done, I can tweak them so everything will look well.

> Ditto for LyX (except that on windows you currntly need an X server)

Yes, but Lyx is not installed by default on our computers. Neither is an
X-server or cygwin, which is required for XFree86 for Win32, which is the
only free X server I'm aware of.

The problem is that Word is at the moment the standard, at least in the
Windows world. And if I want people to have an easy time in using what I
write, then it works best. I realize it's some kind of inertia/chicken and
egg problem, but that's life.

I hate Word and I don't remember meeting anyone who really liked it. But
when working on Windows and intending something for Windows people, it's
what I'd usually use, at least for Hebrew. For English I use a mixture of
plaintext files, HTML, Word and recently - Perl POD.

> "LyX is the first WYSIWYM word processor"

WYSIWYM = What you see is what you mean?

The slogan sounds nice, but I'll have to check the implmentation to see if
they fullfilled it.

> LaTex2HTML simply conevrts them to bitmaps...

Which makes them quite useless, if you ask me. After all, they can't be
editted, copy and pasted, etc.

I hope that it can be
hacked to have an option to convert them to MathML equations. MathML is
the HTML standard for drawing equations. It is supported by the Amaya
browser, but I don't know which other browsers. Netscape 4.7 does not
support it, and AFAIR neither does IE5. Don't know about Konqueror,
Mozilla, or IE6.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:27:22 +0300

> Is it really the entire book?

Since nobody remembered, I went ahead and actually checked the book.
This postscript file only covers the first 6 chapters of the book. There
are 4 chapters missing, unfortunately:
	7. Planar Graphs
	8. Testing Graph Planarity
	9. The Theory of NP-Completeness
	10. NP-Complete Graph Problems

The 64 pages of the postscript file covers the same 6 chapters that the first
147 pages of the book covers (the book has smaller pages).

If I remember correctly, these missing 4 chapters are indeed not taught in
the "Algorithms in Graph Theory" course in the technion - but it is still
unfortunate that these chapters missing. Perhaps someone with better
connections in the Technion can ask them to release the 4 missing chapters?
Or perhaps to start printing that book again so I could buy it...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Monday, Jun 18 2001, 27 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Ways to Relieve Stress #10: Make up a
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |language and ask people for directions.