m20992@mwvm.mitre.org (Paul Hargrove) (07/21/89)
I must say this has been a very heated discussion, and now I am ready to
put in my two bits.
It seems to me that the most important piece of information lacking for a
good answer to the original question is: "what do _you_ mean by word
processor? "
It is important to note that different people have a different opinion of
what, to them, is truly a word processor. Their are those who prefer WYSIWYG
and those who like the ability to just type the @#%!&* text in as fast as they
can think it up, and then use the *roff utilities to do the formatting as a
separate train of thought. I personally am not big on vi or ed, but find most
of the WYSIWYG programs to be too slow redrawing the text after a more than
minor change... but I am digressing, my opinion is not really important.
What is really important is what _YOU_ want in a 'word_processor', and I
think whatever it is _YOU_ want, you can find it for either *NIX or for a PC.
And I am sure any of you out there can manage to "put up with" MS-DOS for long
enough to start-up a WP program and print it out.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
EACH TO HIS OWN
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here-in are, in fact, shared by other
sentient beings, but I must withhold their names to protect the innocent.
.lf NOTE
*
* Paulked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/21/89)
In article <20306@adm.BRL.MIL> m20992@mwvm.mitre.org (Paul Hargrove) writes: >It seems to me that the most important piece of information lacking for a >good answer to the original question is: "what do _you_ mean by word >processor?" This strikes me as the heart of the issue. **IX has various TEXT processors ranging from fmt to ditroff. It does not, however, come with any program that fits the expectations called up by the term "word processor" in the MSDOS world. Nevertheless, even the crudest of the original **IX tools have capabilities not found in the sexiest MSDOS word processing or desk-top publishing tools. Let me offer a real-world example. Ventura (Xerox) looks pretty sexy until you try it with real world documents. Specifically, unless it has been fixed since the last time I checked, it breaks when footnotes are more than half of a text page. Many other MSDOS word processors don't handle footnotes at all, or impose severe restrictions on their size. In my field (history) it is not unsual to have footnotes that exceed the text size. In legal writing (not a small and inconsequential market), this situation may occur every N pages where N is 4, 3, or even 2. While it may take an adept a couple of days, even a week or so, to write a macro for nroff/troff that can handle this situation, it CAN BE DONE, and in double columns, triple columns, etc. And, once you've got the macro written, four key strokes (.XX\n) will give you something that you can't get with a $000 or $0000 software package, no matter how hard you try. Standard **IX text tools may not handle this situation as configured. It may be HOLY HELL to write working macros. BUT, eventually, you'll be able to FORCE the system to do WHAT YOU WANT. My experience with msdos tools is that if what you want to do is not something the programmer imagined, THAT'S JUST TOUGH. For me, as an historian who must conform to the style requirements of various journals and venues, the ultimate question is, "What is the most expedient route to placing black marks on white paper in the form expected/demanded by publishers?" So far, the answer has been vi/*roff. Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis 916-752-1636 (voice, fax [2300-0800 PDT]) 916-752-0776 secretary (bitnet) ehkinmonth@ucdavis.edu (uucp) ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (telnet or 916-752-7920) cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251] request ucdked, login as guest, no password
lacey@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) (07/21/89)
In article <26558@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > **IX has various TEXT > processors ranging from fmt to ditroff. It does not, however, come with > any program that fits the expectations called up by the term "word > processor" in the MSDOS world. Nevertheless, even the crudest of the > original **IX tools have capabilities not found in the sexiest MSDOS > word processing or desk-top publishing tools. Well, of course, if all we are counting is what comes with the system, [A-Z]+IX has MS-DOS beat cold. Are there really any true blue EDLIN users out there? Sure, I'm not a great fan of vi (can you say emacs?), but, let's get serious, EDLIN? If we drop that obvious dead-end, our beloved operating system boasts of many fine "Word Processors". Take SCO Lyric, or Word Marc Composer, or even the ubiquitous WordPerfect, as fine examples. Concerning the use of formatting languages vs. publishing systems: >While it may take an adept a couple of days, even a week or so, to >write a macro for nroff/troff that can handle this situation, it CAN BE >DONE, and in double columns, triple columns, etc. And, once you've got >the macro written, four key strokes (.XX\n) will give you something >that you can't get with a $000 or $0000 software package, no matter how >hard you try. Granted, but this is exactly the ease-of-use vs. flexibility issue. A programming language is many times more flexible, but it requires time and skill to exploit that flexibility. Standard publishing systems (including high end word processors) are much easier to use (at first), but suffer, as you say, from a rigidity designed into the system by the developer. Who wins? In terms of popularity in the marketplace, the ease of use wins big. Even within language-based systems, note the popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX. Many people will call this a matter of taste. Whatever works for each person is what they should use. Of course, but that choice shouldn't be made in ignorance. For myself, I would call the choice not one between WYSIWYG and formatting languages, but between visual and logical design. The former does have major disadvantages, as pin-pointed by the phrase WYSIAYG (What You See Is All You Get). >Earl H. Kinmonth >History Department >University of California, Davis -- John Lacey | cornell!batcomputer!lacey lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu | lacey@crnlthry.bitnet
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/21/89)
In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: >and skill to exploit that flexibility. Standard publishing systems >(including high end word processors) are much easier to use (at first), >but suffer, as you say, from a rigidity designed into the system by >the developer. Who wins? In terms of popularity in the marketplace, >the ease of use wins big. Even within language-based systems, note >the popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX. Perhaps a rough analogy with cameras might be drawn. More point-and-shoot cameras will be designed and sold than high end Nikon, Canon, Haselblad (sp?) machines and more people will process their film at K-Mart than at custom labs. Nevertheless, virtually all who work professionally will stick with the generally harder to use high end equipment. More could be done to combine approaches - wrappers and friendly shells for a powerful and fully programmable engine.
woods@eci386.UUCP (07/22/89)
Hmm, I wonder if this should be followed up in comp.text now? In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: > Concerning the use of formatting languages vs. publishing systems: Hold on a moment. Are you a programmer? I am. I find little more in the form of language in troff macros, than I do in the use of key strokes or mouse moves of your average "WP". Use of a macro package like MM reduces even further the use of language constructs while formatting a document. Don't get me wrong. I'll still call troff and TeX formatting languages too, but I find their grammar so utterly simple, I cannot imagine why anyone cannot learn them. > [....] Even within language-based systems, note > the popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX. That is, from what I understand, the same as comparing the MM macro package to raw troff. Of course MM is more popular. It is, IMHO, several orders of magnitude easier to ue. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET} +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] Toronto, Ontario CANADA
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (07/22/89)
In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: > Who wins? In terms of popularity in the marketplace, the ease of > use wins big. Even within language-based systems, note the > popularity LaTeX enjoys over TeX. But this isn't quite the same as WYSIWYG vs. language-based. LaTeX is TeX. A TeX expert can get LaTeX to do almost anything TeX will with only small extra style files. Since I learned to hack style files, I've never wanted to use plain TeX. The main reason is that LaTeX does things right that I or most people without experience in book design would do wrong. LaTeX (or AMS TeX or APS TeX) is a better starting place than plain TeX.
mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren) (07/25/89)
In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: > >Perhaps a rough analogy with cameras might be drawn. More point-and-shoot >cameras will be designed and sold than high end Nikon, Canon, Haselblad >(sp?) machines and more people will process their film at K-Mart than at >custom labs. Nevertheless, virtually all who work professionally will >stick with the generally harder to use high end equipment. But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through a couple of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the copyright and Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and typeset with a Macintosh II and Microsoft Word" or some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box."
pipes@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Pipes ) (07/25/89)
In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: > >[stuff elided] I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." Kernighan, Brian W. and Ritchie, Dennis M.; The C Programming Language, 2nd edition; Prentice Hall, 1988. Pg. IV "This book was typeset (pic|tbl|eqn|troff -ms) in Times Roman and Courier by the authors, using an Autologic APS-5 phototypesetter and a DEC VAX 8550 running the 9th Edition of the UNIX(c) operating system." They didn't say whose machine it was, though. In any case, no one would do a book meant to be widely read on something as primitive as troff, would they? :-) | EMail: pipes@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov David Pipes | | Vox: (301) 286-2248 X X X | | Message contains only my opinions. ======= | | "French is sort of the lingua franca of Europe..." ======= |
lacey@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) (07/25/89)
In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: >In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: >> >>Perhaps a rough analogy with cameras might be drawn. More point-and-shoot >>cameras will be designed and sold than high end Nikon, Canon, Haselblad >>(sp?) machines and more people will process their film at K-Mart than at >>custom labs. Nevertheless, virtually all who work professionally will >>stick with the generally harder to use high end equipment. > >But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through a couple >of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the copyright and >Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and typeset with a Macintosh II >and Microsoft Word" or some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." Two things. First, I didn't write that, though I do think the example is a good one, and I might wish I had written it. Which brings us, of course, to your criticisms of the statement. Well, I don't why you are seeing more books printed with M-word Word, because I'm not. I own narry a one of them, whereas I own 7 books that used {La,AMS-,Plain }TeX, and I've seen several more. I think you are right, that perhaps you aren't reading high enough quality books [ 2/3 :-) ]. Also, and this is pure speculation on my part, perhaps you are not reading the _back_ pages, as half of my TeXed books inform me that they were so typeset at the end, rather than the beginning. Just a thought. Cheers, -- John Lacey | cornell!batcomputer!lacey lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu | lacey@crnlthry.bitnet
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (07/25/89)
In <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren):
TM> But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip
TM> through a couple of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right
TM> alongside the copyright and Lib. of Congress info -- "This book
TM> written and typeset with a Macintosh II and Microsoft Word" or
TM> some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular lit./media,
TM> but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and
TM> typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box."
Because UNIX people are too cool; much more so than the average PC
luser. What really makes the difference to the people getting the
book is the results, not what hardware and software got it there. If
I need a book I don't care if some old geezer in a grimy print shop
made it or if some yuppie in a blue suit at a MacIntoaster wisked it
off in time for his game of racquetball. It's just that the yuppie
dweebs care more about that kind of baloney.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))chpf127@ut-emx.UUCP (John W. Eaton) (07/25/89)
In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: >> [...] Nevertheless, virtually all who work professionally will >> stick with the generally harder to use high end equipment [presumably TeX|*roff, though I might not go so far as to say harder to use...] In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) asks: > But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through > a couple of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the > copyright and Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and > typeset with a Macintosh II and Microsoft Word" or some such? I > dunno...maybe I read too much popular lit./media, but I've not seen > a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and typeset with > LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." Well, because the people who write the books you've been reading aren't professionals :-) or you're just not looking at the right books :-). Most of the Unix books published by Prentice-Hall have been typsest using troff, and the AWK book and Stroustrup's C++ book were too. Wolfram's Mathematica was typeset in TeX, as were Golub and Van Loan's Matrix Computations, Press et al.'s Numerical Recipes, Gill et al.'s Practical Optimization, etc. etc. etc. Granted, not all of the books produced using TeX/LaTeX are shining examples of superior typesetting skill (but then again neither are all then books done with MSWord). Perhaps you're reading too many McBooks :-) about the McMacintosh :-). -- John Eaton chpf127@emx.utexas.edu Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/25/89)
In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: >In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: >But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through a couple >of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the copyright and >Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and typeset with a Macintosh II >and Microsoft Word" or some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." The Davis Medieval Text and Studies Program has done several dozen books with vi and troff. There are a number of job shops that use troff (or more recent incarnations). I suspect you see more references to the programs you mention because of what you read (computer, technical books). Standards for layout and design tend to be higher in humanities publishing (IMHO), and one simply cannot achieve the expected appearance with the level of program you mention.
lacey@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) (07/25/89)
In article <26629@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: >>In article <8467@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: > >>But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through a couple >>of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the copyright and >>Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and typeset with a Macintosh II >>and Microsoft Word" or some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >>lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >>typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." > Three times in one day is too much. Would everybody please be careful when they hit F and edit the quotes. I mean, hell, Earl, I was already misquoted as saying something _you_ said, and now you are misquoting me. If you want to reply to the original posting, please find the original message and reply to that, and not edit the replies to the original. I apologize if I am a little testy, but hey, I accept responsibility for what I say, but not what I don't, and certainly not for what I have publicly disagreed with. Cheers, all, and careful with editing those follow-ups. -- John Lacey | cornell!batcomputer!lacey lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu | lacey@crnlthry.bitnet
mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren) (07/25/89)
In article <8484@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes: >Two things. First, I didn't write that, though I do think the example is >a good one, and I might wish I had written it. Which brings us, of course, >to your criticisms of the statement. Well, I don't why you are seeing >more books printed with M-word Word, because I'm not. I own narry a one >of them, whereas I own 7 books that used {La,AMS-,Plain }TeX, and I've >seen several more. I think you are right, that perhaps you aren't reading >high enough quality books [ 2/3 :-) ]. > >Also, and this is pure speculation on my part, perhaps you are not reading >the _back_ pages, as half of my TeXed books inform me that they were so >typeset at the end, rather than the beginning. Just a thought. Incidentally, what sort of books are these that were typeset with TeX/*roff? Surely you must realize that with the technical aptitude of people who are writing books about computers and technology they would certainly use tools such as these, because we all know that they are simply so much more versatile. However, perhaps you (I don't mean specifically you, I mean those who are proponent's of the UNIX(c) environment in regards to any sort of work involving the written word), aren't giving yourselves enough credit. After all, it's simple for you to understand TeX/*roff as you are accustomed to things similar to it. Likewise, people in other walks of life (fiction writers, for instance), are more likely to not only not understand computers in the least, some outwardly HATE them. Thus, anything that looks and acts at least somewhat like a typewriter (in which I mean that you are essentially getting on the printed page whatever keys you hit on the keyboard), they are much more comfortable with. And, perhaps my eye isn't trained enough, but I can't see much difference in the end product. Tim McClarren mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (07/25/89)
In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: >I dunno...maybe I read too much popular lit./media, but I've not seen a >whole lot of "This book written under vi, and typeset with LaTeX/*roff on >Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." Not everybody feels the need to announce how they produced their book, but I do have a significant number of books whose publication information page includes a declaration that they were prepared using troff, etc. on UNIX with e.g. an APS-5 phototypesetter. Nobody in the UNIX world is likely to mention what text editor they used in preparing the book.
gaggy@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Gregory Gulik) (07/25/89)
In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: > >But then why is it that more and more I pick up a book, flip through a couple >of pages, and lo & behold, there it is right alongside the copyright and >Lib. of Congress info -- "This book written and typeset with a Macintosh II >and Microsoft Word" or some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." What kind of books do you read?? The only books I've ever seen that were written and typeset on Mac (or similar) hardware were Mac documentation and Mac magazines. I own several books that were written in *roff, mostly UNIX and C books, but I also have several books, mostly math, written using a variation on TeX. Of course, they never do mention that vi was used to edit the text. Are they ashamed or something? How about emacs? -greg -- Gregory Gulik Phone: (312) 825-2435 E-Mail: ...!jolnet!gaggy || ...!chinet!gag || gulik@depaul.edu || gulik@iwlcs.att.com || variations thereof.
libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes) (07/26/89)
>Most of the Unix books published by Prentice-Hall have been typsest >using troff, and the AWK book and Stroustrup's C++ book were too. I think the real reason is that Prentice-Hall made a decision several years ago to go to troff. They apparently have a small staff of troff-hackers that will convert things from whatever you give them. Faced with this sillyness, it isn't surprising that authors use troff if they have it. >Not everybody feels the need to announce how they produced their book, >but I do have a significant number of books whose publication information >page includes a declaration that they were prepared using troff, etc. on >UNIX with e.g. an APS-5 phototypesetter. Nobody in the UNIX world is >likely to mention what text editor they used in preparing the book. Our book was prepared using FrameMaker. All text editing was done using FrameMaker. (The FrameMaker editor is a large subset of emacs.) I think FrameMaker is amazingly well-done, whether or not you already know emacs. My co-author and I were both experienced with troff and Mac utilities, and actually did some writing using each to see how it would go. As we beat our heads against the wall for the 50th time, Frame coincidentally appeared on the market, and we switched to that. Upon reflection, we are quite amazed that the serendipity caused by our several restarts left us so happy. Prentice-Hall told us that they had a program to convert PostScript to troff (yeah, we thought this was a riot, too). But we went out and contracted for the camera-ready copy ourselves with a local PostScript print shop. Don Libes libes@cme.nist.gov ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/26/89)
In article <1555@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim McClarren) writes: > I mean that you are essentially getting on the printed page whatever keys > you hit on the keyboard), they are much more comfortable with. And, perhaps > my eye isn't trained enough, but I can't see much difference in the end > product. I can. The big giveaway that a book has been typeset with a page-layout program or a word processor rather than with a text processor is sneaky inconsistancy. Footnotes that don't quite look the same from chapter to chapter. Occasional changes in layout. Lists that aren't always indented the same amount. Figure titles centered in one place and left-aligned in another. With a WYSIWYG program the *user* is responsible for making sure all the bits look the same. With a text processor that boring job is left to the computer. There are usually *some* presets, but they're limited. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) (07/26/89)
> Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.unix.questions: 24-Jul-89 Re: a word-processor > for UNIX David C Lawrence@pawl.rp (1084) > In <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Tim > McClarren): > TM> some such? I dunno...maybe I read too much popular lit./media, > TM> but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and > TM> typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." > Because UNIX people are too cool; much more so than the average PC > luser. What really makes the difference to the people getting the > book is the results, not what hardware and software got it there. It is interesting to see this debate. Well debate, let's it is more like speculation. Most books are produced by a publisher. The publishing house itself can have rules about what details they provide about the book production process. I know at least one publisher which won't put any production information in a book unless they are really sure that it will sell well and they don't consider it an eyesore in the first place. Sometimes authors offer publishers a book which is already complete from cover to cover. They can take or leave it, so the puiblishers have hardly anything to add apart from the ISBN number. In those cases it is more likely that it will have information in it how it is produced, since the authors might be proud that they did it themself. Also, the publisher might not really want to be held responsible for the final appearance of the publication; it might not be as great as the authors think it is. jaap
jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jaap Akkerhuis) (07/26/89)
> Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.unix.questions: 25-Jul-89 Re: a word-processor > for UNIX Tim McClarren@herodotus. (1954) > Incidentally, what sort of books are these that were typeset with > TeX/*roff? Well, any book can be typeset with these tools. I remember seing next to each other waiting to be send off to the printer, the minutes of yet another meeting of the UN (about ~4000 pages) and the autobiography (~200 pages) of the main character from `Deap Throat', somebody Lovelace or what ever. Both were typeset using troff. (Both texts were just as interesting). What people seem to forget in this discussion is that still the large majority of book published nowadays are actually still typeset by professional typesetters. They will use whatever tools are available for them. Heck, I've seen books, done in TeX, delivered to the typesetter on tape and hard copy, completely keyboarded from the latter one, because it was more cost effective to do that then to go through the exercise of disecting the tape and the authors macros, create macros which would decent looking fonts and implement a decent design etc. Of course the author was told that they used his tape and actually went trough the exercise. jaap PS. Although interesting, maybe we should move this discussion out of unix.questions into comp.text, so everybody else won't be interrupted discussing rm ./-rf
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (07/27/89)
In article <233@psgdc> rg@psgdc.UUCP (Dick Gill) writes: > In article <1989Jul21.203719.3716@eci386.uucp> I write: > >> [ from yet another article in the chain! ] > >> Concerning the use of formatting languages vs. publishing systems: > > > >Hold on a moment. Are you a programmer? I am. I find little > > Maybe this is the crux of the matter. Programmers approach > problems in a particular way, and the production of finished > text is simply another problem to be solved using familiar > tools. [ and more about writing zillions of massive macros.] I'm not sure I've ever written more than 5 or 6 troff macros. None of them were more than 4 lines long. What I'm eluding to is the use of already written macro packages such as MM. The grammar of MM is very simple. The number of keywords, and their understandability makes it a bit worse, but far from impossible. The worst part of learning MM (and troff) is the language used in the documentation (registers? in a formatter? :-). However, there are plenty of well written guides to using MM and troff. > Maybe it is convnience or maybe it is ego; probably it is both. > Sure, is efficient to be able to produce a complex document > without having to screw around with the format each time, but > the real lure is that the machine work in ways comfortable to > me and thus gets out of the way so that I can get some writing > done. That is, after all, the point, isn't it? If I was to claim I was programming while writing a document with troff, I'd have SERIOUS ego troubles. MM lets me write without thinking much about the final "look and feel" of the document. After I've done the writing, either I, or someone else, can, with relative ease, adjust the style of the document. They don't have to edit every formatting directive in my document to change the look. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET} +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] Toronto, Ontario CANADA
cuccia@yak.sybase.com (Nick Cuccia) (07/27/89)
In article <393@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pipes@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <1552@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu> mcclaren@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu.UUCP (Tim McClarren) writes: >>[stuff elided] I dunno...maybe I read too much popular >>lit./media, but I've not seen a whole lot of "This book written under vi, and >>typeset with LaTeX/*roff on Bob & Jim's UNIX(c) box." > >Kernighan, Brian W. and Ritchie, Dennis M.; The C Programming Language, > 2nd edition; Prentice Hall, 1988. > Pg. IV > "This book was typeset (pic|tbl|eqn|troff -ms) in Times Roman and > Courier by the authors, using an Autologic APS-5 phototypesetter > and a DEC VAX 8550 running the 9th Edition of the UNIX(c) > operating system." > Why limit yourself to the second version? Something similar was in the first version. Many of the books out of Bell Labs in the past ten years have had similar statements--the Dragon books, the Bach book, etc. Not that I like (or even *care*) what system was used for any given book; Just stating that this is hardly a new practice--just one that's become popular... --Nick =============================================================================== Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb...--Batman Nick Cuccia System Admin/Postmaster, Sybase, Incorporated cuccia@sybase.com 6475 Christie Av. Emeryville, CA 94608 {sun,lll-tis,pyramid,pacbell}!sybase!cuccia +1 415 596-3500 ===============================================================================
cherry.STCWR@xerox.com (07/27/89)
According to a conference on Electronic Publishing held in Florida a while back, the MacIntosh is the most popular document creation tool in the industry. Unix is just recently becomming used in the general market place rather than in Universities and Govermnent facilities. TeX, Interleaf, Frame and other word-processors are available for Unix but they were not available ten years ago. Many of my customers use the above mentioned word-processors but, they also continue to use their Macs. PCs are not as popular as the Mac. According to the conference, Macs hold almost 50% of the Electronic Publishing market. There are word-processors available under VMS (XPS-701, &c.) but, they are also not wide spread. This is also true for word-processors for the IBM market place. I may be spoiled because I have had access to WYSIWYG document creation tools here at Xerox for at least 10 years. The old tools ran on a processor called an Alto. Later we had Dorados, Dolphins, D0s, and then the Star processors. These also supported the Interlisp environment and the TEdit document creator. One problem with the Xerox tools is that they don't talk to PostScript printers. The old Alto sytstem printed on Pinguin (sp) press printers and the newer word-processors talk in Interpress for Xerox printers. I am sure that with the growing interest in Postscript and the growing interest in a variety of Unix workstations (Sun, Apollo (now owned by HP), Dec, &c.) that we will soon see more and more of these high level WYSIWYG document creation tools. As usual, I also expect that we will see a high level of incompatibility among the various document formats. The ability for Interleaf to read and process, with visual fidelity, a TEdit document is highly unlikely. The industry does not seem to be interested in standards or the ability to coexist with other document creation tools. Just as with PostScript, there are over 50 variants of this PDL currently on the market. Just because a WYSIWYG document creation tool can output PostScript doesn't mean that your printer may print that document. Add to this the different formats for bitmaps and pixel arrays for graphics, vector graphics, graphic languages, &c. and you have a vary large problem. I expect that you will see more and more document and PDL conversion tools on the market to join with the new offerings for document creation tools. The fact that there does not appear to be a version of Word-Star for Unix isn't the real problem. The real problem is that there does not exist a standard for document creation across different platforms and operating environments. Bob Cherry Systems Consultant Office Systems Integration Xerox Corpooration PUP/GV : Cherry.STCWR XNS : Cherry:STC WR:Xerox | cherry%anb02.gryphon:COM:Xerox ARPA | cherry@anb02.gryphon.COM : cherry.STCWR@Xerox.COM UUCP : arisia!cherry | {rocksanne | spot | gryphon | wright}!anb02!cherry TPC : (714) 474-2273 _ /| XPC : 8 * 825-2273 \`o_O' MS : LARH 5007 =( )= Aachk! Phft! U work = : home = |
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/27/89)
>Three times in one day is too much. Would everybody please be careful >when they hit F and edit the quotes. I mean, hell, Earl, I was already >misquoted as saying something _you_ said, and now you are misquoting >me. If you want to reply to the original posting, please find the >original message and reply to that, and not edit the replies to the >original. I'm sorry to have (inadvertently) jerked your chain. I, for one, take my quotes where I can get them. A misquote is at least better than being ignored. Nevertheless, in the interest of peace, harmony, intellectual discourse, and all of the other wonderful things usenet stands for, let me propose a cross-licensing arrangement: I will not assert copyright when you misquote me, and you will not assert copyright when I misquote you. Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis 916-752-1636 (voice, fax [2300-0800 PDT]) 916-752-0776 secretary (bitnet) ehkinmonth@ucdavis.edu (uucp) ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (telnet or 916-752-7920) cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251] request ucdked, login as guest, no password
pipes@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Pipes ) (07/27/89)
>Nick Cuccia writes: >Why limit yourself to the second version? Because it was the first one I grabbed! I understand the article to which I and many others responded had some questionable attributions. I hope the gentleman involved (someone@Cornell) realizes that I was reacting to the flavor of the (possibly improperly) attributed arguments, and not to him. | EMail: pipes@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov David Pipes | | Vox: (301) 286-2248 X X X | | Message contains only my opinions. ======= | | "French is sort of the lingua franca of Europe..." ======= |
rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim) (07/27/89)
? From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu> ? Also, the ? publisher might not really want to be held responsible for the final ? appearance of the publication; it might not be as great as the authors ? think it is. Do you think anybody (except insiders) really care who the publisher is? Can you tell the difference between Prentice Hall and Random House? If Addison Wesley produces a dog, do you decide not to buy other books by that publisher, or do you decide based on the author and title. I consider publishing houses to be about as important as whether General Mills or Kellogg's made my cornflakes, or whether MGM or Universal produced the last movie I saw. ? jaap Root Boy Jim Have GNU, Will Travel.
rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim) (07/27/89)
? From: Don Libes <libes@cme.nbs.gov> ? Date: 25 Jul 89 19:00:18 GMT ? >Most of the Unix books published by Prentice-Hall have been typsest ? >using troff, and the AWK book and Stroustrup's C++ book were too. ? I think the real reason is that Prentice-Hall made a decision several ? years ago to go to troff. They apparently have a small staff of ? troff-hackers that will convert things from whatever you give them. ? Faced with this sillyness, it isn't surprising that authors use troff ? if they have it. Well, it seems that the tail and the dog wag each other. I am surprised that no one mentioned that AT&T is not likely to typeset their books using anything they didn't invent. If PH uses troff, guess which house AT&T will publish thru? And since AT&T is nearby and sends lots of business their way, it's not surprising that PH uses troff. Someone asked whether anyone would use anything as primitive as troff to write a book with (altho a smiley face was tacked on). Actually, troff has held up quite well, and is quite stable, having changed little in its lifetime. Troff is a prime example of a tool that is used by its developers, and is therefore refined over time. Someday, I'll cut a P.O. for your book, Don. ? Don Libes libes@cme.nist.gov ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes Root Boy Jim Have GNU, Will Travel.
ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny) (07/28/89)
In article <20387@adm.BRL.MIL> rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim) writes:
=>? From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap+@andrew.cmu.edu>
=>
=>? Also, the
=>? publisher might not really want to be held responsible for the final
=>? appearance of the publication; it might not be as great as the authors
=>? think it is.
=>
=>Do you think anybody (except insiders) really care who the publisher is?
=>Can you tell the difference between Prentice Hall and Random House? If
=>Addison Wesley produces a dog, do you decide not to buy other books by
=>that publisher, or do you decide based on the author and title.
Well, I have found that all computer related books published by TAB are
worth avoiding. There is a qualitative difference between the general
offerings of book publishers. Of course, this is a very coarse-grained
selection criteria. When looking at books published by Prentice-Hall and
Addison Wesley, for example, you are quite correct that the author and
subject (title) are far more important.
Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715
ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/28/89)
In article <1965@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>, ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny) writes: > Well, I have found that all computer related books published by TAB are > worth avoiding. TAB is the Canon Films of publishing? :-> -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch