laser-lovers@uw-beaver (04/30/85)
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA> In reply to David Fuch's flame, keeping up with the most modern version of Computer Modern is not necessarily a sensible thing to do. CM has gone through a number of changes and is evolving still. It will not stop changing until either Don Knuth decides that he has gotten it "right" or gets tired of this business. Rumors have it that the latter event is fast approaching. Changes in font designs are moderately awful to implement in commercial systems: it is necessary to coordinate the distribution of both the new fonts and the host software that uses font width information. Thereafter, any customer inquiries involving fonts must be tracked to determine which font version they are using. (No, you can't count on everyone updating -- some will decline). Whenever the absolutely final, definitive version of Computer Modern emerges from the TeXnocrats, I expect that Imagen and others will give serious consideration to updating. Until then it seems foolish to chase a moving target. Happily, Les Earnest
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (04/30/85)
From: David Fuchs <DRF@SU-SCORE.ARPA> Sorry Les, but your ignorance of the facts is showing. The "moving target" you refer to has not budged ONE PIXEL in two whole years. When Prof. Knuth finished the "AM" release two years ago, we made it quite clear that it would be stable for a few years while TeX was finished off and the new Metafont redeveloped from scratch. And that's exactly what's happened. It will be another 6 months before the new "CM" release will be ready for general consumption. So that will make a total of 30 months during which time a variety of updated software and hardware has appeared from Imagen, while I sat by and answered the phone trying to explain to disgruntled Imagen customers why they had to buy a TeX font tape from Stanford even though Imagen sent them fonts that they were told was up-to-date. In retrospect, maybe I should have forwarded all those calls to you, Les, so that by now you'd have a complete appreciation of the reality of the situation. -david p.s. The possessive of "Fuchs" is "Fuchs'", not "Fuch's". -------
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (04/30/85)
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA> Responding to David Fuchs'' April 30 message, it is clear that David does not understand the field support issue, doubtless because of his lack of experience. I have no objection to his trying to sell the latest version of the CM fonts to all who call, but do not apologize for failing to be utterly modern. To David: I suggest that we take this silly argument offline. I am just two doors down the hall, remember? Les Earnest