Yonderboy@cup.portal.com (Christopher Lee Russell) (01/31/91)
I have finally got TeX running.. Well at least it comes up and starts
giving me error messages now..
I got the StTeXbin.zoo file from Atari.archive.
Firt thing I tried to do was use LaTeX to process the TeX doc files for
UniTerm 2.0e. TeX came back with an error message stating that I needed
some *.sty file to process! What's up with these *.sty files?
And could some TeX guru fill me in on what VirTeX or LaTeX is exactly (as
related to "normal" TeX? Does anybody have any books they suggest on either
TeX or LaTeX?
...thanks ahead for any help...
........yonderboy@cup.portal.comfischer-michael@cs.yale.edu (Michael Fischer) (02/04/91)
In article <38673@cup.portal.com> Yonderboy@cup.portal.com (Christopher Lee Russell) writes: >I have finally got TeX running.. Well at least it comes up and starts >giving me error messages now.. > >I got the StTeXbin.zoo file from Atari.archive. > >Firt thing I tried to do was use LaTeX to process the TeX doc files for >UniTerm 2.0e. TeX came back with an error message stating that I needed >some *.sty file to process! What's up with these *.sty files? > >And could some TeX guru fill me in on what VirTeX or LaTeX is exactly (as >related to "normal" TeX? Does anybody have any books they suggest on either >TeX or LaTeX? > > ...thanks ahead for any help... > ........yonderboy@cup.portal.com TeX is a complicated package with many distinct parts. Get someone who knows what he's doing to help you bring it up. And buy "The TeXbook" by Donald E. Knuth and the "LaTeX User's Guide & Reference Manual" by Leslie Lamport, both published by Addison-Wesley. You might also want to join the TeX users group and/or start reading the national newsgroups arpa.texhax and comp.text.tex. To answer your specific questions: IniTeX is used to turn macro packages such as LaTeX into .fmt "format" files. (The format file for LaTeX is called "lplain.fmt".) VirTeX reads format files and then processes your .tex file. Thus, LaTeX in many systems is just a shell script to run VirTeX with "&lplain" as its first argument. LaTeX uses a database of "style" files---files with .sty suffix. TeX/LaTeX also need .tfm files which describe the various fonts available. (These are generated by Metafont---see below.) VirTeX uses various environment variables to locate its files. It read its .fmt, .sty, and .tfm files while processing your .tex file and produces a "device independent" .dvi output file. .dvi files can be viewed on the screen or printed on various kinds of printers if you have the appropriate .dvi driver AND the required raster fonts ".pk" files. By themselves .dvi files are pretty useless. MetaFont is the program for generating .pk and .tfm font files from .mf files (which describe the font in an abstract way). If you have to generate your own printer or screen fonts, then you have another big job ahead of you, and you will want to buy the Metafont book, also by Knuth and available from Addison-Wesley. Hope this helps. -- ================================================== | Michael Fischer <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu> | ==================================================
rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (02/05/91)
this was the first understandable description of TeX/LaTeX i have seen.
i had to run that sucker once, a couple of years ago, on a sun, and have
totally abandoned it as one of the poorest documented huge systems around
(much worse than something like NASTRAN, for example). personally, i stick
with troff, since it is trivial to use by comparison for simple documents.
TeX may be superior for doing books, but it really is horrible to get up
the learning curve just to write a simple letter (since it takes a week
just to install the damn thing). part of the problem is there does not
seem to be a really simple explanation like what was just posted. you are
stuck with reams of docs to wade thru. i tried to figure out the docs for
the ST version some months ago (before 3.x was available) and gave up
after several hours of wading thru docs written in the format which must
be read only after the system was installed (kind of like posting an
executable of an archiver in the format of that particular archiver :-( ).
maybe it is just the installation instructions on the ST that are rather
sketchy, so don't all u jump on me for loosing it :-). still, it seems to
me that a system as complex as TeX should have a README with at least
this sort of minimal introduction, so that from the first step, a user/
installer has a somewhat global view of how the system works.
thanx to michael fisher for this clear, thumbnail intro. people reading
that description can probably save a week of frustration...
-bill
rosenkra@convex.com
(bitching, as usual... :-)
--
Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra
Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.comgjh@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (02/05/91)
Bill Rosenkranz writes:
++ still, it seems to me that a system as complex as TeX should have a README
++ with at least this sort of minimal introduction, so that from the first
++ step, a user/installer has a somewhat global view of how the system works.
It would be nice, admittedly, but that rather lays the burden on someone else's
shoulders. What might *they* get out of it --- books dedicated to the subject
are available for purchase. It's a difficult judgement to make with a system
as complex as TeX.
What does the team think ....
How much info --- and what sort --- should go into a README file?
Graham
======
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Higgins | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060
Hewlett-Packard Labs | gjh%ghiggins@hpl.hp.co.uk
Bristol | gjh%ghiggins@hplb.hpl.hp.com
U.K. |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My opinions above are exactly that, mine and opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (02/06/91)
oh, BTW: if i sounded too testy over software which is essentially free,
i apologise. nobody, including ME :-), should ever really complain about
something they don't have to pay for. consider my rantings as more of
a critique, a suggestion for improvement (which i really think TeX docs
needs), etc. the last thing i wanted to do was imply that the people
who made it possible have done a bad job. they did an excellent job
in bringing such a complex system to "our" world. i just wish they would
have written a few words for those of us who know nothing (or remember
nothing, in my case). but then i am often as guilty as the next in this
regard. maybe we need a "standard practices" manifesto for posting
codes of this ilk. i would not even mind writing it, so long as we
don't get into a religious battle over details. how about this for a
start:
files in manifest (all upper case :-):
README describe what the program does, what the pieces
do, etc (so user/installer sees the "big picture")
INSTALL *precise* installation instructions, and the assumed
execution environment (cli, desktop, etc). don;t
make the user guess. and include any non-standard
environmental issues (like the termcap file cannont
have CR/LF line termination, just LF, which GNU
emacs port required at one time, and which i do
not ever recall seeing explained, for example)
BUGS we NEVER make misteaks (air the dirty laundry,
explain limitations, etc)
CHANGES change history or at least what's new in this post
XXX.MAN nroff source for a manpage (for nroff)
XXX.<section> ascii-formatted manpage (for humans, section 1 for
commands, 2 for sys calls, 3 for libs, etc, a la
BSD, if possible)
and post the readme or at least an except before the uuencoded archive
so recipients know whether they need or want this post. this goes for
things archived but not posted as well.
most software posted has much of this info, this just tends to make it
consistent. and yes, manpages are a unix-ism, but also a fairly common
method in this group for documenting things. note that i just posted the
latest nroff as well as a man(1) and a pager for man (manpager). and yes,
i would hope this would be in english :-). if we go thru the trouble of
getting something to run, and share it, we might as well spend an extra
hour to make it easier for people to install and use. [sure, why not]
back to TeX...
and i DO have both of the books mentioned, though they generally say
nothing about installing (obviously) as i recall. and i would not expect
them to say anything about installing, except perhaps as an example. i
will look at them to see if they do. one of these days, when i can find
a spare 5-10MB, i, too, will install TeX. not right now, however.
there, i feel better now... :-)
-bill
rosenkra@convex.com
--
Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra
Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.comgjh@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Graham Higgins) (02/07/91)
++ oh, BTW: if i sounded too testy over software which is essentially free, ++ i apologise. nobody, including ME :-), should ever really complain about ++ something they don't have to pay for. No offence taken here, generally, one gets what one pays for. ++ files in manifest (all upper case :-): ++ README ++ INSTALL ++ BUGS ++ CHANGES ++ XXX.MAN ++ XXX.<section> Seems like a sensible set ++ and post the readme or at least an except before the uuencoded archive ++ so recipients know whether they need or want this post. this goes for ++ things archived but not posted as well. Sensible again. Is this structure and process worth adopting as an informal standard? Comments, anyone? ++ back to TeX... If you like, I'll email you the destructions which come with my TeX distribution. Cheers, Graham ====== ------------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Higgins | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060 Hewlett-Packard Labs | gjh%ghiggins@hpl.hp.co.uk Bristol | gjh%ghiggins@hplb.hpl.hp.com U.K. | ------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: My opinions above are exactly that, mine and opinions. ------------------------------------------------------------------