gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/02/88)
In article <144@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >(however, since INteractive now >owns nroff and troff, maybe theirs are the true standards of tomorrow -:) And in a posting a few days ago, someone said that SoftQuad's enhanced tools were the new official release of DWB. Could you rumor mongers please post more precise information so we can find out what is going on with troff? Thanks.
txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) (07/04/88)
In article <8206@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <144@wash08.UUCP> I write: >>(however, since INteractive now >>owns nroff and troff, maybe theirs are the true standards of tomorrow -:) >And in a posting a few days ago, someone said that SoftQuad's enhanced >tools were the new official release of DWB. Many apologies, my misstatement - we're in the midst of INteractive/SoftQuad wars at my job and I'm getting alittle confused! - SoftQuad's formatters are the new, official documenters workbench. ~ ~ ~ "Timothy_Reed_American_Chem_Soc" 23 lines, 1152 characters
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (07/05/88)
> >And in a posting a few days ago, someone said that SoftQuad's enhanced > >tools were the new official release of DWB. > > Many apologies, my misstatement - we're in the midst of > INteractive/SoftQuad wars at my job and I'm getting alittle confused! - > SoftQuad's formatters are the new, official documenters workbench. I think what the original poster *meant* was that SoftQuad's formatters were *derived from* "the new, official Documenter's Workbench", presumably meaning DWB 2.0. Unfortunately, they stated this in a fashion that could lead somebody to believe that they were claiming that SoftQuad's formatters *are* the latest DWB release; i.e. that there is a DWB 3.0, issued by AT&T, that is the same stuff that SoftQuad is shipping, or something such as that. The exact statement was: Softquad Publishing Software is the official new release of AT&T Documenters Workbench, and hence does indeed contain licensed software from AT&T. which would have been better stated as "SoftQuad Publishing Software is baded on the official new release...", unless they really *are* claiming that AT&T is just reselling SoftQuad's software, which I would find difficult to believe.
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Migration Engineer) (07/06/88)
Anthony A. Datri writes: >Let's say I wanted to use TPU. DEC doesn't provide that on all of it's >operating systems, so don't get people used to it. By your argument, they >should all use TECO. IBM PC's all come with edlin, so everyone should >use edlin. No one is saying that EVERYONE should USE vi. The posting just said that students should KNOW SOME vi. >The original EMACS runs on most or all of the pdp-10 os's. Gosling/Unipress >emacs runs on: ... >They're working on it for the macintosh. Okay, as a new UNIX user, I have an opinion. I work in a center where I deal with different customers from week to week. All I can say is that many customers expect me to have some knowledge of VI. Also, here at HP, there are many people who are EMACS fanatics. They humor my absurd desire to know how to get around in VI. The funny thing is, if I ask them a VI question, the always know the answer. I think that many EMACS users are in the enviable position of knowing BOTH vi and EMACS, therefore, it is easy for them to stand up on their pedestal and tell everyone to learn ONLY EMACS. They will never be have to test whether that works in the real world. I have found that not knowing VI in the UNIX world can make life harder. Obviously, the two KEY editors in UNIXland are VI and EMACS. Therefore, either of these editors is probably sufficient to get around a little. Perhaps students should be taught an introduction to both and let them make their own decision? ------------------- - "OK, Flame away. Just remenber, this is a DISCUSSION. It ain't a religious war!" gph
bclarke@sq.uucp (Bill Clarke) (07/06/88)
There has been a lot of discussion recently (Guy Harris and others) about
the relationship between SoftQuad Publishing Software (including the
recently announced DOS port created by MKS) and Documenter's Workbench
from AT&T.
SoftQuad Publishing Software release 2.9 is now available for both UNIX
and DOS, and a technical description is scheduled for posting in the
next few days. In the meantime I can clarify the relationship between
SoftQuad and AT&T.
Late last year, SoftQuad and AT&T entered into a co-marketing arrangement
which was announced in the press at the time.
Under the terms of this agreement, negotiated over many months and
following evaluations by AT&T of various products, SoftQuad Publishing Software
is available in source and binary form through AT&T and SoftQuad as an enhanced
product derived from AT&T's UNIX Documenter's Workbench, Release 2.0 Software.
SoftQuad is providing ongoing support and development for the product.
In its current release, it has also been incorporated by AT&T into
its "Standard Operating Environment" (SOE) for internal use. Special
arrangements have been made for the purchase of SoftQuad Publishing Software
by AT&T personnel.
For further information, please call the co-marketing line:
800 387-2777 in the US
416 963-8337 in Canada.
Or email to us at mail@sq.com or uunet!attcan!utzoo!sq!mail.
Bill Clarke, Executive Vice-President
SoftQuad Inc.dgy@sigmast.UUCP (Dave Yearke) (07/07/88)
In article <58846@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: >The exact statement was: > Softquad Publishing Software is the official new release of AT&T > Documenters Workbench, and hence does indeed contain licensed software > from AT&T. >which would have been better stated as "SoftQuad Publishing Software is baded >on the official new release...", unless they really *are* claiming that AT&T is >just reselling SoftQuad's software, which I would find difficult to believe. I also found it difficult to believe when I heard about it several weeks ago. Apparently, SoftQuad has rewritten troff to use a new device-independent output format that is human-readable, unlike dvi output. AT&T is evaluating it and if they like it will resell it as DWB 3.0. This is the story I got from our AT&T representative several weeks ago, and was confirmed by a SoftQuad employee I talked to. (Disclaimer: company reps have been known to be wrong. I will only say that this is what I was told, and may not be the actual case.) -- Dave Yearke, Sigma Systems Technology, Inc. 5813 Main St, Williamsville, NY 14221 ...!{sunybcs,ames!canisius}!sigmast!dgy
randy@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Randy Orrison) (07/07/88)
In article <810009@hpsemc.HP.COM> gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Migration Engineer) writes: | I have found that not knowing VI in the UNIX world can | make life harder. | | Obviously, the two KEY editors in UNIXland are VI and EMACS. | Therefore, either of these editors is probably sufficient to | get around a little. Perhaps students should be taught an | introduction to both and let them make their own decision? What? When I bought my Unix-pc, it came with (of course...) UNIX*. This computer had only ONE editor on it. Which one? Not vi, not emacs, no... it was ed. That's right, ed. Fortunately, I know how to use ed (at least a little) and so was in a much better position than my friend who only knew vi (useless). I believe that students should be tought the editor that is most likely to be available on all Unix systems: ed. :-) :-) On the other hand, (almost) the first thing I did when I got my development kit was to compile MicroEmacs. I have ported MicroEmacs to every machine I've done serious work on. Here's what I really believe: teach them emacs, and give them a copy of the source for MicroEmacs. -randy *UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs (or somebody with a similar name) and so should be taken as the definitive definition of what's exists. -- Randy Orrison, Control Data, Arden Hills, MN randy@ux.acss.umn.edu {bungia, uunet!hi-csc, rutgers, sun}!umn-cs!randy "I consulted all the sages I could find in Yellow Pages, but there aren't many of them." -APP