Best PDF library

I will be generating PDFs. Which library is the most good?

I have examined so far:

http://www.lowagie.com/iText/
http://libharu.sourceforge.net/

What do you think?

you do NOT under any circumstance reserve any sort of "right" or "privledge" to change it from how I want it to be.
What the fuck are you smoking? Of course everyone has the right to do whatever the fuck they want to do with the files on their computer, including viewing and modifying them in any way they wish. Copyright law only puts legal limits on distribution.

And security at the filesystem level is meant to keep other people out of your files, not keep you from using your own damn files! How can you confuse these simple things?

I want to believe you are trolling, but a real troll wouldn't write that much..

>>35
PDF has an additional con. It sucks for office work
Of course it sucks for office work! It's not supposed to be used for office work! For fuck's sake, haven't you been paying attention? We keep telling you that's NOT what PDF is for, and you keep accusing us of wanting to use PDF for everything.

Say I want you to edit my document, and I send you a nice big JPG screenshot of it. Do you get angry at the JPG format because you can't edit it? How is that any different than blaming PDF?

This is what you're doing here. It's not the fault of JPG for being uneditable, just as it's not the fault of PDF for being uneditable. You should be angry at me for sending you the wrong format, and you should be angry at yourself for not properly informing me of what you needed.

Also, if you're a "designer", what the fuck are you doing in /prog? Go suck some Adobe cock elsewhere. We're Haskell/Python/Ruby/* trolls here, not "designers".
I like how you think everyone who likes PDF is a "designer". Hey genius, if you do a CTRL+F on this thread, you'd notice that you're the only one here who says the word "designer".

Many of us are scientists. Computer scientists, computer engineers, physicists... PDF is absolutely vital to publishing papers with any decent formatting at all. You don't have to be a graphics designer to want your paper to look good, but you DO need PDF to publish it electronically.

Now I know you hate PDFs, but grab a decent PDF viewer and take a moment to look at what a decently formatted article looks like:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0703742

Scroll through it for a second. Take a good luck at the math. The computer algorithms. The figures. The data tables. All of this makes the article easy to read.

None of that shit is possible in plaintext. None of that is possible in HTML/CSS (good luck getting math and inset figures looking that good, and being that easy to read, in HTML).

And yes, I really did just go to Arxiv, click Astrophysics->New, and pick the very first article that popped up. It's that easy to find articles that absolutely require PDF to be published.

You want to read tiny Times text with goatse-anus-sized margins? You can.
It's called the zoom tool shithead. I can't even fathom how your brain manages to process the most basic of information.

>>42
LOL YHBT

>>43

If that was some sort of troll attempt, your effort to lulz ratio is fucked.

>>44

If that was some sort of troll attempt, your effort to lulz ratio is fucked.

>>42
Of course it sucks for office work! It's not supposed to be used for office work!
I know (and it's not supposed to be used for anything), but Adobefag >>22 said so.

Say I want you to edit my document, and I send you a nice big JPG screenshot of it. Do you get angry at the JPG format because you can't edit it?
I can tell you are a "designer" fag. You completely ignore that JPEG is NOT for vector drawing, text or screenshots, due to DCT compression. PNG would be the best popular format for that, and it's an open format.

If you sent me a screenshot of the text, it'd be equally as bad. You're sending me shit. Use text for text. I want text. As in text. So give text. As in text. The difference is JPEG has its use for pictures. When you need a matrix of pixels, JPEG doesn't fuck with you (other than being lossy). On the contrary, PDF doesn't have any use. It's bullshit. Perhaps I can grant it'd be ok as a printing format. But I don't print. I use a computer screen, and I don't want to see PDFs on my computer screen.

I like how you think everyone who likes PDF is a "designer".
Yes, you Adobefags are all fancy-glasses trendy-clothes "web designers" or "graphics designers".

Many of us are scientists.
From /sci, possibly.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0703742
HTTP 403 Forbidden. Lol, you fags are so concerned about people stealing your arts/ideas/etc. that you don't even let people access them, rendering them useless. What's next? Partnership with Microsoft for Vista PaperDRM? I come back from lab to say what this shit? You stealing my arts! Perl fags fack you.
(Note: I'm trolling you here. The rest was serious.)

It's called the zoom tool shithead.
Nope, it's called PDF is shit. "Zoom tool" becomes shit because PDF is page-oriented. Pages force a specific layout on my screen which doesn't accomodate to it. If I use "zoom tool", I end up having to scroll horizontally to read. Because page-orientation is shit for fags, text doesn't accomodate properly and portably to the client. Same goes for your goatse-anus-sized margins. Articles articles lol. Wasting my screen. And what if text comes out too big? I can reduce it, but then I'm wasting my screen again, because your gay ass pages have aspect ratios below 1 and text is not rendered according to the User-agent's client width. Also, what's with pages? If you're so concerned about proper layouts, pages force breaks everywhere and they fuck with tables and other stuff.

>>PDF is absolutely vital to publishing papers with any decent formatting at all.

It's called PostScript. Learn to use it, science noobie.

text/plain or image/png or image/jpg or GTFO

more like image/jpeg

Many of us are scientists.
Real scientists use latex.

>>50
real scientists don't have sex.

Oh, that sounds kinky

>>4
Specially now that macs print to them with ease. Bastards. And I like macs. PDF is like a one way Vagina for your edits [here, personified by the penis]. Use it and the contents of the head won't come out for further use :)

>>53
Wow, that must be the worst post ever.  Not only did you compare the PDF to something that doesn't exist (one-way vagina), your metaphor actually makes it HARDER to understand the subject.

>>54
i'm sure >>53 has no idea what a vagina even looks like, so his shitty metaphor is understandable.

>>46
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0703742
HTTP 403 Forbidden. Lol, you fags are so concerned about people stealing your arts/ideas/etc. that you don't even let people access them, rendering them useless.
What the fuck browser are you using? I clicked the link YOU QUOTED and it popped right up. If you're that incompetent, use the link to the abstract instead, and click on PDF:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703742

arXiv is a free scientific information repository. There are no arts here, and the whole point is to share ideas. This information is all free of DRM; they almost always include the .tex source, so idiots like you can fuck up the formatting all you want.

Yes, you Adobefags are all fancy-glasses trendy-clothes "web designers" or "graphics designers".
I can't stand Adobe; I genuinely detest their products. I use KPDF to view PDFs, and GIMP and Inkscape for my (rare) graphics editing needs. And no, I'm not a web designer or graphics designer. Fail.

>>50 >>47
LaTeX primarily outputs to PDF, shitheads. DVI is dead, and there isn't a direct path from LaTeX to PS. Plus DVI is not self-contained; there's nothing more irritating than having to extract a tarball before viewing a document. Besides, PDF has extra features that DVI and PS don't support, such as internal linking, so you can e.g. click stuff in the table of contents to hop to the proper section. Plus it's smaller than PS.

LaTeX primarily outputs to PDF, shitheads.
Gyahaha. Just a little worked up are we?

Welcome to 4chan, new guy.

I'm much like the other guy this thread, only i dont really care about certain things.
I belive that all data is free to flow and be modified, i don't belive in any DMCA bullshit and any of that crap. There isn't ANYTHING on my PC's and servers that i cannot modify, if there is something that i cannot modify, i will OPEN UP MAH TRUSTY OLD DEBUGGER AND DISASSEMBLER , reverse enginner it and modify it(if needed of course)..
As for the idiots thinking pdf's are some kind of contracts, thats even more stupid.. yes, if its digitally signed then you cant modify something without breaking the signature(or replacing it), in which case the document woudnt be signed by the original party, so there is a bit of a point here, but if you think that if you disable some rights in PDF's , then some people woudnt be able to modify it, then you are greatly mistaken. It's just data people, bitstreams. You can do anything you fucking want with it.

Now that i have shown that im completly not bothered by any DRM at all, as if i would ever need to defeat it, then i will be able to defeat it. ( Also come on people, im sure there are hundreds utils out there for removing drm from pdf's , its not like its a custom protection system or anything, its quite popular).

As far as PDFs go, i find them an excelelnt format for storing documents/books for print, with good nice typesetting. It looks nice, its easy to read, its flexible for the creators. Standards arent closed either. I dont know the exact status of how good are non-Adobe PDF Readers are out there, but if they arent good enough, its up to them to improve, after all the standard isn't closed.

That said, PDF's ARE FINE TOO and NO they are NOT 'digital documents you cannot change'.

>>56
What the fuck browser are you using? I clicked the link YOU QUOTED and it popped right up.
It works now. It had to have been down for maintenance just when I tried it.

arXiv is a free scientific information repository. There are no arts here, and the whole point is to share ideas. This information is all free of DRM; they almost always include the .tex source, so idiots like you can fuck up the formatting all you want.
YHBT even when I acknowledged that I was trolling you.

GIMP
Ahh, you work with two monitors.

LaTeX primarily outputs to PDF, shitheads.
Lol YHBT.

>>59
Ahh, you work with two monitors.

Yes, actually.

Do you have the same criticism of Photoshop?

>>60
No, I don't have much to say about Photoshop other than it's probably overpriced; haven't tried it myself (using Paint Shop Pro 11 for my needs), so I shouldn't be talking about it.

WHBTC

Your window mousey hair   I heard you   singing in the   img tag and   search a basic   interpreter has ever   been created using   anything other than   VIM or Emacs   Or MSVC ew   How hard it   tries to be   part of this   syntax highlighting which   I cannot see   failed to figure   out how to   quote so I   pronounce it C   compiler with matching   chopstick holder WITH   chopsticks OH and   it CANNOT have   any cartoon pictures   or be made.

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Somebody

Somewhere

Just
Check
Them

Roll your own