Okular preferred linux PDF reader

Anne Wilson cannewilson at googlemail.com
Sun Dec 6 15:35:34 GMT 2009

On Sunday 06 December 2009 15:16:32 Duncan wrote:
> Christian Mikovits posted on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:20:32 +0100 as excerpted:
> >> On Sunday Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>> Here is an example of wrong rendering in Okular:
> >>>
> >>>    http://i45.tinypic.com/2vc9dlx.png
> >>>
> >>> Here is how Acrobat renders it:
> >>>
> >>>    http://i48.tinypic.com/3028c5v.jpg
> >>>
> >>> And the PDF is:
> >>>
> >>>    http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf
> >
> > Funny, also no problem for me with okular:
> >
> > http://i45.tinypic.com/2vc9dlx.png
Isn't that the original 'bad' URL?

> Check the contents for the PDF to find the page, BTW, or search for "Why
> Unix Vendors".  It's pg 50 here, tho only labeled pg 10 on the page
> itself.
> If you look at it, that looks way more like his "bad" rendering Okular
> than his "good" rendering Acrobat.  The font is "fat" just as in Okular,
> not the thin one Acrobat uses.
It isn't here.

> However, while I've glanced at the source in the pdf, I don't know what
> I'm looking at in terms of whether it has embedded fonts or not, so it
> doesn't help me.  If it doesn't embed fonts, then both Acrobat and Okular
> should be using native platform fonts.  

Since Christian and I found different font substitution tables in the 
properties, that would suggest that the fonts are not embedded.  They are 
standard Microsoft fonts, so it's assumed that there is no need to embed.

> If it does, then Acrobat's almost
> certainly using the embedded fonts, while Okular... has a checkbox to use
> embedded or native (under configure backends, Ghostscript, which is the
> only backend I have here), and no one has mentioned whether they have
> that checked or not.  Tho here it doesn't seem to matter so it's probably
> not embedded.  But in that case, Acrobat is definitely choosing a
> different font than Okular!  They're both Serif fonts, but the one Okular
> uses is significantly fatter.  Either that or maybe Okular or ghostscript
> is ignoring that option and using platform fonts regardless.
The DejaVu font used here is not identical to the Acrobat rendering of course 
- the font is certainly a different one - but it is neat, thin and a suitable 
substitute.  I would imagine that the more likely culprit is the inability to 
find a suitable substitution font on Nikos' system (or lack of look-up 

KDE Community Working Group
New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde/attachments/20091206/a3ff31e3/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management:  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.

More information about the kde mailing list