[Info-vax] Process a .pdf file ?

[John Wallace]

On Nov 18, 4:07 pm, Paul Sture <paul.nos... at sture.ch> wrote:
> In article <hdqrfs$va$0... at news.t-online.com>,
>  Michael Kraemer <M.Krae... at gsi.de> wrote:
>
> > Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:
>
> > > Frequently a PC is the best tool for the job.  You can sneer at the
> > > "click and drool" interface but millions use it and it works for them!
> > > Frequently the PC or paper and pencil are the only tools available.
>
> > > There are tasks that cannot be easily accomplished using Windows and
> > > that's the reason I keep both VMS and Solaris systems around and wasting
> > > electricity!  None of the three is the best tool for EVERY job.
>
> > The majority of people (and customers) don't want to have three
> > vastly different systems. They standardize on the one they
> > use for reading mail, and everything else has to follow.
>
> Unfortunately that mentality has managers suggesting Windows for
> production control systems.
>
> --
> Paul Sture
> c.o.v

Of course one size fits all.

Just look outside the IT world. One size always fits all. You don't
get civil engineers building different kinds of bridges depending on
circumstances, production engineers always use the same kind of
machine tool regardless of requirements, motor vehicle engineers
always use the same engines regardless of application, there's only
one kind of steel and engineers use it in all known applications, etc.
A plumber only ever uses one kind of pipe, an electrician always uses
the same kind of cable whether it is for general duties or whether it
needs to be fire resistant, a carpenter's toolbox only ever has one
tool in it.

That's the way it works isn't it?

Or is it only "one size fits all" when the PHBs and their "Powerpoint
culture" have been allowed to take over.

""PowerPoint was used to ‘demonstrate’ engineering rather than explain
a proper technical analysis. When engineering analysis and risk
assessments are condensed to fit on a standard form or overhead slide,
information is inevitably lost. ... PowerPoint can ... be dangerous,
mesmerising, and lead to sloppy (or nil) thinking.".

Those are not my words, they are the words of the recently published
UK Government report into the death of 14 servicemen in an RAF Nimrod
aircraft crash in Afghanistan in 2006, which turns out to be a result
of a whole trail of avoidable errors and unnecessary shortcuts, for
which as yet no one has been prosecuted. In fact for a traditional UK
Government inquiry, the report is exceedingly scathing and even names
individuals.

But as many of us round here know from our own experience,
inappropriate use of "Powerpoint culture" extends far, far beyond the
military and their suppliers.

You could also argue that the big commercial players in the IT game
have largely built up a self-preserving Microsoft-dependent
monoculture, but that's a different subject for a different day.

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/29/nimrod-crash-inquiry-raf-afghanistan