<div dir="ltr"><div>Actually the first time I noticed this was when the text labels on the graph were invisible in Inkscape. Inkscape has an internal and a Cairo engine (if that is the correct word), and gives an option to selection one method when opening a PostScript file. So it does involve text, to some extent. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Alan Davis<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:34 AM Alan E. Davis <<a href="mailto:lngndvs@gmail.com">lngndvs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Off topic and out of order. Please feel free to ignore this if it is completely bonkers. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I have been pulling my hair out about differences between pdfs produced by conversions by ps2pdf, of PostScript output by the Gri graphing language. This did not involved text. A friend converted on a Mac and got much prettier results than my results from ps2pdf, either standalone or by way of Inkscape. My workflow has been working fine for at least two years, and other edits with Inkscape too that suddenly are not working the same. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Why I thought this message thread relevant to my issue: I never understood previous to the past month that PDFs are rendered differently by different software. Even a push or a shove in some direction would be gratefully received, toward learning more about this entire process. It troubles me that my work, as trivial as it is---tide graph calendars, and other graphs---would not be rendered consistently on different media. I get it that in print, my carefully edited grid line widths will look differently on photo paper in a consumer printer than on, say, generic printer paper. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I have been looking at them with evince, okular, acroread (on GNU/Linux), and other pdf readers. My eye is obviously not as discerning as yours, because I seem little difference between the two images in your attachment. I don't know what to look for.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I apologize that this is probably not related to your discussion. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I can provide graphics if anyone wants to look at them. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Alan Davis<br></div><div><br></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 1:50 PM Jim Diamond via texhax <<a href="mailto:texhax@tug.org" target="_blank">texhax@tug.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Paulo,<br>
<br>
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 13:02 (-0700), Paulo Ney de Souza wrote:<br>
<br>
> Your point is made. I can see it.<br>
<br>
I'm glad to hear I wasn't hallucinating the whole thing :-)<br>
<br>
> I have to investigate first the chances that the Acrobat<br>
> installation is damaging Evince. I have seen it happening a couple<br>
> of times in the installation of our Production Suite in the past but<br>
> thought we had left this behind now...<br>
<br>
? I really don't see how that could happen.<br>
<br>
But I will tell you that I see the same so-so font rendering from<br>
evince on a system which is 64-bit only, and thus I don't have<br>
Acroread on that system.<br>
<br>
> I'll have the opportunity to do a new installation this next week<br>
> and will try before and after installing Acrobat.<br>
<br>
I'll be interested in hearing how it goes, but I'll be surprised if<br>
Acrobat has anything to do with it.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Jim<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"> "This ignorance about the limits of the earth's ability to absorb<br> pollutants should be reason enough for caution in the release<br> of polluting substances."</div><div> ---<a href="https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/digital/publishing/meadows/ltg/" target="_blank">Meadows et al. 1972. Limits to Growth</a>. (p. 81) <br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"> "This ignorance about the limits of the earth's ability to absorb<br> pollutants should be reason enough for caution in the release<br> of polluting substances."</div><div> ---<a href="https://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/digital/publishing/meadows/ltg/" target="_blank">Meadows et al. 1972. Limits to Growth</a>. (p. 81) <br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>