[HN Gopher] PostScript's sudden death in Sonoma
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       PostScript's sudden death in Sonoma
        
       Author : homarp
       Score  : 144 points
       Date   : 2023-09-25 20:20 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co)
        
       | Aloha wrote:
       | The reaction to this is as if every computer on the planet is
       | losing the ability to open with PS/EPS. PS/EPS were not native
       | MacOS files until the infusion of NeXTSTEP code into MacOS in the
       | form of OS X.
       | 
       | I've lived in a mixed system world for a long time, opening
       | PS/EPS on Windows has always required extra software. You can
       | convert it on Linux easy enough, or just install Ghostscript on
       | MacOS.
       | 
       | Either way, the time of PS/EPS as a regular and common
       | interchange data format is long gone.
        
         | arcticbull wrote:
         | > PS/EPS were not native MacOS files until the infusion of
         | NeXTSTEP code into MacOS in the form of OS X.
         | 
         | I agree it's probably not a big deal, but let's be fair here.
         | That was 22 years ago. Classic MacOS was only around for 17
         | (1984-2001).
         | 
         | It's a native format for macOS starting in 10.0 and prior to
         | that an extra native format for NeXT starting in 1989 - when
         | the macOS lineage began (note the lowercase 'm')
        
         | quickthrower2 wrote:
         | I jokingly thought the .ps format was used by computer science
         | departments to punish Windows users, with the Ghostscript
         | installation process being part of that conspiracy.
        
         | adastra22 wrote:
         | It's in the very first paragraph of the article:
         | 
         | > If there's one language that's been at the heart of the
         | Macintosh for the last 39 years it's PostScript, the page
         | description language developed by the founders of Adobe, the
         | late John Warnock and Charles Geschke, and their team of
         | engineers. It brought the Mac's first commercial success in
         | desktop publishing, in PostScript fonts, and early PostScript
         | printers including Apple's game-changing LaserWriter. Although
         | Mac OS X never inherited NeXTStep's Display PostScript, its
         | descendant Quartz and Core Graphics are still based on
         | PostScript's relative PDF.
        
       | pstuart wrote:
       | One would think that Apple should be able to sandbox Preview to
       | maintain functionality whilst avoiding security issues.
       | 
       | Mac's native handling of PS has always been a slick
       | differentiator -- seems a shame to throw that away.
        
         | znpy wrote:
         | Most likely an analysis of cost vs benefits resulted in a
         | decision for deprecation first and removal later
        
         | nraynaud wrote:
         | I was thinking that a quick web app to convert your old EPS
         | file might be a good way to execute the code in a sandbox. I
         | don't know if we can get ghostscript to run in WASM
        
         | flenserboy wrote:
         | Sandboxing makes a lot of sense -- perhaps virtualizing older
         | macOS versions could give people what they need.
         | 
         | Yet there is Ghostscript, which could also be run in a VM for
         | extra security. It's a tool I still need in order to keep from
         | distributing licensed fonts in PDFs -- turning a PDF into PS,
         | then back into a PDF, is a handy trick.
        
           | pstuart wrote:
           | Haven't played with Ghostscript in ages but will always have
           | a soft spot for it.
           | 
           | That said, using it (in a VM) as a workaround requires more
           | steps and a bit more technical interaction that destroys the
           | original seamless experience. Apple has been aggressive about
           | tightening down the OS (still pissed that strace is neutered
           | by default); taking the security approach of just not doing
           | the work at all is really lame on their part.
           | 
           | Theoretically they provide the ability to do just what I'm
           | suggesting: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/c
           | onfiguring-...
        
             | zeusk wrote:
             | Well I guess they learned from Microsoft's mistakes and are
             | lowering their exposure while their Mac install base is
             | still low enough?
             | 
             | It is getting ridiculous that I have to run multiple VMs
             | for accessing old programs and data; but then at least I
             | should be grateful we have functioning VMs?
        
         | brigade wrote:
         | If there's one thing infosec types universally do not trust to
         | improve security, it's sandboxing. Just look at all the
         | discourse spilled over the recent WebP vulnerability.
        
         | avianlyric wrote:
         | Is suspect Apple's experience with Blastdoor[1] has made them
         | unwilling to go that route.
         | 
         | Blastdoor is meant to provide a secure sandbox for processing
         | images and other data that arrives in iMessages. Puts all the
         | potentially dangerous format decoders in a little box, and
         | viciously kills anything that starts behaving odd when passed
         | something to process. It certainly improved iOS security, but
         | also quickly proved to be less than bulletproof, mostly due to
         | just how much freedom older image formats provide.
         | 
         | Ultimately code that isn't in the OS can't be exploited. Images
         | decoders have a long history of being exploit vectors that are
         | very hard to close. At a certain point simply not shipping them
         | is the best course of action, doesn't prevent people from
         | adding them later, but at least only those who need the
         | functionality are in the firing line (which reduces the
         | incentive for exploiting those formats, and indirectly ends up
         | providing further protection to those that need to work with
         | the formats).
         | 
         | [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/28/messages-blastdoor-
         | ios-...
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | If I remember, PostScript had a fairly eye-watering licensing
       | fee.
       | 
       | I know that it added a great deal to the price of printers, if I
       | got them with actual (as opposed to emulated) PS.
        
         | mrighele wrote:
         | Was it only the license fees or the fact that (for the time at
         | least) it required powerful hardware ?
         | 
         | For example, if memory serves me right, at the time of the
         | introduction the LaserWriter had a more powerful cpu than the
         | Mac that it was supposed to go with.
        
           | nemo wrote:
           | The original Apple LaserWriter had a Motorola 68000 CPU
           | running at 12 MHz, 512 KB of workspace RAM, and a 1 MB frame
           | buffer. That wasn't cheap, but Adobe's pricing of the
           | PostScript license was still very steep and contributed
           | significantly to the high printer costs. Adobe's greed over
           | licensing fees caused serious conflicts between Apple and
           | Adobe.
        
           | zweifuss wrote:
           | Yes, until about 1995, a new laser printer could have a more
           | powerful CPU and more RAM than a fairly common (even new)
           | office computer driving it. That stopped at about Pentium 100
           | speed and 6 MB of RAM because normal use cases didn't need
           | more than that.
        
       | layer8 wrote:
       | PostScript is also deprecated in PDF 2.0.
        
       | koito17 wrote:
       | This is very unfortunate. I've always found it annoying how Mac
       | OS' Preview.app "natively" supports PostScript but will
       | stubbornly convert it to a PDF and delete the original PS file.
       | 
       | I do not have concrete statistics to back this up, but in my
       | experience, a gzipped PostScript documentat is often smaller than
       | an equivalent PDF, and unlike PDF, it's marginally easier to edit
       | by hand after decompressing. Also, the PDFs created by Quartz
       | PDFContext is often needlessly large and tools like pdftk have
       | been able to losslessly compress them, whereas Quartz' own
       | compression filter seems like the equivalent of JPEG compression
       | at quality 0.
       | 
       | The only practical advantage of PDF to me is the presence of an
       | alpha channel, but that is basically it. With that said,
       | PostScript documents themselves being a sort of program has
       | always been a security nightmare for some, so I understand the
       | removal on Apple's side. During the OS X Tiger days, I recall a
       | simple infinite loop in PS could've stalled Preview's PS-to-PDF
       | converter. Being able to properly sandbox PS seems like too much
       | effort at this point given the ubiquity of PDF.
        
       | watersb wrote:
       | Apple is removing a number of scripting environments from OS X,
       | so they won't have to maintain them.
       | 
       | Not sure if they can remove Perl; it's tangled up in standard C
       | libraries I think, and would be hard to kill.
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | > Not sure if they can remove Perl; it's tangled up in standard
         | C libraries I think
         | 
         | Indeed.                   char *cmd = "/usr/bin/perl -e 'print
         | join(chr(0), @ARGV), chr(0)' -- ";
         | 
         | (https://github.com/Apple-FOSS-
         | Mirror/Libc/blob/2ca2ae7464771...)
         | 
         | That's to implement _wordexp_ , a POSIX function that probably
         | is best avoided unless you really really need it.
         | 
         | I think the sanest implementation would move lots of code from
         | the shell into the standard C library, but that probably has
         | its own problems, as FreeBSD does something similar. https://ma
         | n.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=wordexp&apropos=0&...:
         | 
         |  _"IMPLEMENTATION NOTES
         | 
         | The wordexp() function is implemented using the undocumented
         | freebsd_wordexp shell built-in command."_
         | 
         | OpenBSD actually has the sanest approach. _"The only winning
         | move is not to play."_ or, in Theo's words, _"I think we should
         | stand up to crap and not ever impliment it"_ (https://www.mail-
         | archive.com/tech@openbsd.org/msg02325.html)
        
       | watersb wrote:
       | Postscript is really easy to generate from shell scripts; I wrote
       | a little thing that did labels for our (physical books) library.
       | 
       | Not sure what I'd use for alternative. I'm sure there are many
       | little modules that would help. Or I could just install
       | Postscript. But it's nice to have things with fewer dependencies.
        
       | CharlesW wrote:
       | RIP PostScript. (Not to be confused with PostScript RIP.)
        
         | andybak wrote:
         | This is perfect. Not a single wasted syllable.
        
         | watersb wrote:
         | Oh, do I share the fun with those without grey hair...
         | 
         | RIP = Raster Image Processor, often a standalone computer
         | acting as a front-end for a printer. It accepts jobs, runs the
         | PostScript, and converts it to a format native to the printer.
         | 
         | At some point, it has to render a bitmap. Conceptually simple,
         | but the frame buffer is going to be multiple megabytes.
         | 
         | When PostScript was young, megabytes of RAM could require
         | thousands of dollars.
         | 
         | The CPU running PostScript was itself a rather powerful machine
         | for the time.
         | 
         | And then, the software license for the PostScript running on
         | the RIP...
         | 
         | I ran a network of 200 Macs, and for a number of years, the
         | most powerful computer on that network was the printer.
        
       | hankman86 wrote:
       | They probably want to eliminate an attack vector. Removing
       | PostScript support from WebKit/Safari seems like the right
       | decision in light of PostScript's waning relevance as a
       | publishing format.
       | 
       | Not sure about EPS - last I used it was for vector graphics
       | within LaTeX documents. That was in the early 2000s.
       | 
       | I am sure that applications targeting designers will integrate
       | alternatives like Ghostscript soon enough.
        
         | kergonath wrote:
         | > Not sure about EPS - last I used it was for vector graphics
         | within LaTeX documents. That was in the early 2000s.
         | 
         | People really should use pdflatex at the very least now. The
         | original latex has too many issues and quirks.
        
       | Angostura wrote:
       | I was really shocked when I found that Preview in Ventura would
       | no longer open PS and EPS files a small but annoying reduction in
       | quality of life for me
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | when preview stopped opening video files that had a codec other
         | than ProRes or H.264, it just felt broken to me as well. for
         | the longest time, one of the first things i'd add to any new OS
         | install were the QT extensions of the other codecs. now, that's
         | no longer supported.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | GeekyBear wrote:
       | Adobe itself has deprecated PostScript in favor of it's PDF
       | implementation, and has removed support for True Type and Type 1
       | Postscript fonts from their products.
       | 
       | Fixed, thanks.
        
         | andybak wrote:
         | (deprecated)
        
           | riffic wrote:
           | (its)
        
           | GeekyBear wrote:
           | > (deprecated)
           | 
           | The font support?
           | 
           | It was depreciated a couple of years ago and has been removed
           | from current versions of the software as of this year.
           | 
           | > As announced in January 2021, support for all Type 1 fonts
           | in Adobe products is ended after January 2023. Users no
           | longer have the ability to author content using Type 1 fonts
           | in updated Adobe products.
           | 
           | Adobe software will not recognize the presence of Type 1
           | fonts, even if you have Type 1 fonts installed in your
           | desktop operating system:
           | 
           | https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/kb/postscript-type-1-fonts-
           | end...
           | 
           | It's the end of an era.
        
             | sroussey wrote:
             | depreciated != deprecated
        
             | Lt_Riza_Hawkeye wrote:
             | I think they were correcting the spelling from depreciated
             | to deprecated
        
             | gjvc wrote:
             | depreciation is what happens to you car. deprecation is
             | what happens to file formats.
        
           | fisherjeff wrote:
           | True, unless Adobe considers PS support to be a fixed asset
        
       | Eric_WVGG wrote:
       | > I'm now starting to see warnings from third-party app
       | developers that, in Sonoma, their apps will be unable to open or
       | import EPS files, for example, as they can no longer convert them
       | using Quartz in macOS 14. Although the impact on most of us
       | should be very small or negligible, if you do still use EPS or
       | PostScript at any scale, you will need to prepare a solution for
       | continuing to do so after upgrading to Sonoma. I wish you
       | success.
       | 
       | I work with dozens of graphic designers and am quite certain that
       | zero (0) of them know this is coming.
        
         | TheRealPomax wrote:
         | Do they actually deliver PS/EPS though? Based on industry
         | standards I'm kind of assuming they all work with AI/PDF, and
         | _maybe_ SVG (but that 's pretty specific to web rather than
         | graphics design in general) if they're working with vector
         | deliverables. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone
         | voluntarily exporting to PS (and certainly not ever since PDF
         | became an ISO standard 15 years ago)
        
           | thelogicguy wrote:
           | This was more relevant before CC but I still tend to include
           | EPS in exports as a fallback option.
        
           | mushufasa wrote:
           | Absolutely. The standard for printing banners / logos on
           | tables etc. at trade conferences is definitely still EPS,
           | from my experience coordinating with conference planners in
           | the last 3 years.
        
             | favorited wrote:
             | Presumably those print shops have a Photoshop license,
             | which would mean they're unaffected by this.
        
           | Eric_WVGG wrote:
           | I get asked "what format do you want this in, EPS?" maybe a
           | couple times a year.
           | 
           | Some day I'd like to write a blog post about the peculiar
           | relationship between designers/artists and technology... as a
           | whole they seem to have an awful time moving on from the
           | tools they were trained with.
           | 
           | anecdote -- I was chatting with one of the most famous book
           | cover designers in the world a few years back, he was still
           | using Quark X-Press 4 on a Mac that ran OS X with "Rosetta"
           | (10.6?). These people are real and are the whole reason why
           | Adobe.
        
             | TylerE wrote:
             | I don't think it's a training isuse. It's a "if something
             | goes wrong with the output, it's my neck on the chopping
             | block" issue.
             | 
             | There is vanishingly little value in deviating from a
             | known-good workflow until you have a good reason to.
        
               | robinsonb5 wrote:
               | There's also a significant chunk of "I need to be able to
               | open the back catalogue of customer artwork without
               | worrying about whether something's shifted slightly."
               | Import filters for opening legacy formats in newer
               | software can be notoriously bad in that regard.
        
             | ruined wrote:
             | paper documents haven't significantly changed in the past
             | forty years. consider eps feature complete
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | > I can't remember the last time I heard of someone
           | voluntarily exporting to PS
           | 
           | you'd be amazed at what people will do. i did the initial
           | layout for a company's product labels in Illustrator with all
           | files saved as *ai files. after the hand off, the person
           | taking over the tasks ran into issues. they had no idea how
           | to use Illustrator, and re-did the entire layout in
           | Photoshop. when you only have a hammer, everything looks like
           | a nail.
           | 
           | so i can see someone trying to export as EPS because "it's
           | vector" from something like photoshop.
        
             | robinsonb5 wrote:
             | Until recently I was using PostScript and EPS regularly.
             | I'd use a PostScript program to step-and-repeat EPS artwork
             | for a business form or raffle ticket, and apply consecutive
             | numbers in the appropriate place. I'd then use GhostScript
             | to render a final multi-page PDF for printing. I also used
             | it to send artwork to an imagesetter. Yes, they're still
             | used in some sectors, and while the RIP software we had
             | supported PDF, I had much better control of the machine
             | using PostScript with a PPD.
        
         | IshKebab wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
           | mikestew wrote:
           | https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20610/why-are-
           | nu...
        
             | IshKebab wrote:
             | Which of those answers do you think applies here?
        
               | mikestew wrote:
               | Doesn't have to apply at all, perhaps OP's job entails a
               | lot of that style of writing, and it's just habit. Just
               | like I still put a slash through zeroes (0) when writing
               | by hand, even though I haven't coded on an IBM coding
               | form in decades.
        
               | dylan604 wrote:
               | I do as well, plus the bar through the 7
        
               | jiofj wrote:
               | https://english.stackexchange.com/a/20620
        
       | decasia wrote:
       | I have EPS files from 25 years ago that I still want to be able
       | to open, these old graphics that help me remember my dad, a
       | graphic designer. This sucks.
        
         | spandextwins wrote:
         | Wow. That's amazing. I have a bunch of Hollerith punched cards
         | from my dad. I guess my kids will have a bunch of jpeg files
         | from me...
        
         | yankput wrote:
         | There are many graphics editors that still support eps
         | (Illustrator, Affinity stuff, Inkscape); the format is well
         | described and as it basically does not move anymore, the
         | existing convertors will work, like ghostscript (although the
         | Affero GPL is annoying but thats not for this discussion)
         | 
         | It's much better than to have docx or photoshop.
         | 
         | It's just removed from the base OS for probably both licensing
         | and security reasons.
        
         | cmrdporcupine wrote:
         | I don't think Ghostscript is going anywhere. You should be able
         | to use it
        
         | bobbylarrybobby wrote:
         | Is anything stopping you from converting them to PDF?
        
           | decasia wrote:
           | Just that until now I didn't realize I would need to.
        
         | TheRealPomax wrote:
         | Why? Just install ghostscript, works fine?
        
         | decasia wrote:
         | I looked just now and I actually have an EPS of something I
         | drew on a mac SE in 1993. It's amazing how if you can manage
         | not to lose all your files over time, they become an
         | archaeology site documenting long stretches of your life.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-09-25 23:00 UTC)