brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) (08/22/90)
I've just put a copy of the latest supported 3rd party products listing
on the A/UX info/update server. Its broken down by application type and
its actually getting preety large. Its stored in a binhex stuffit format
archive, once you unwrap it should be a nicely formatted MS Word 4.0 doc.
Let me know what else you would like to see on the server.
Kevin
--
Kevin Brooks A/UX Specialist, Apple Computer
UUCP: {mtxinu,sun,nsc,voder}!apple!brooks
APPLELINK: AUX.DUDE@applelink.apple.com
Internet: brooks@apple.comthad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (08/23/90)
brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) in <44145@apple.Apple.COM> writes:
I've just put a copy of the latest supported 3rd party products listing
on the A/UX info/update server. Its broken down by application type
and its actually getting preety large. Its stored in a binhex stuffit
format archive, once you unwrap it should be a nicely formatted MS Word
4.0 doc.
Let me know what else you would like to see on the server.
^^^
With all due respect for the efforts of all the people doing this stuff, I'd
like to see files which don't alienate those of us attempting to port products
to an ostensibly ``UNIX'' platform.
What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose textual material is
formatted per [nt]roff or TeX standards so that ANYONE can read and/or process
the material using the commonly available and/or "free" tools which accompany
one's system(s)?
A "binhex stuffit format archive" formatted for MS Word 4.0 is about as useful
to me as is a VIC-20 relative file written using PET-ASCII.
If apple.com has the disk space for both forms (stuffit, and compressed UNIX
archives), then by all means have both! But a proprietary format designated
for an expensive word processor smacks of "elitism" to me and controverts the
spirit of cooperativeness which has accompanied the UNIX environment since its
inception.
One answer to my query ("Is A/UX Viable?") several weeks ago suggested that
Apple is serious about UNIX. OK, I'm keeping an open mind; PROVE IT!
Thad
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]mgchow@Apple.COM (Mike Chow) (08/23/90)
In article <33093@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) in <44145@apple.Apple.COM> writes: > > I've just put a copy of the latest supported 3rd party products listing > on the A/UX info/update server. Its broken down by application type > and its actually getting preety large. Its stored in a binhex stuffit > format archive, once you unwrap it should be a nicely formatted MS Word > 4.0 doc. > >With all due respect for the efforts of all the people doing this stuff, I'd >like to see files which don't alienate those of us attempting to port products >to an ostensibly ``UNIX'' platform. > > >If apple.com has the disk space for both forms (stuffit, and compressed UNIX >archives), then by all means have both! But a proprietary format designated >for an expensive word processor smacks of "elitism" to me and controverts the >spirit of cooperativeness which has accompanied the UNIX environment since its >inception. I think you're being unfair here with comments like this. My guess is that somebody at Apple produced this document and just happened to be using MS Word 4.0, and that was the easiest way to put that information on the server. Yes I agree, it's a good idea to distribute these documents as simple compressed text files as well. But can't people just politely ask for a simple change without accusations and inuendos? > >Thad > >Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] Mike Chow A/UX Engineering mgchow@apple.com
tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) (08/23/90)
From article <44186@apple.Apple.COM>, by mgchow@Apple.COM (Mike Chow): > In article <33093@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >>brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) in <44145@apple.Apple.COM> writes: >> >> I've just put a copy of the latest supported 3rd party products listing >> on the A/UX info/update server. Its broken down by application type >> and its actually getting preety large. Its stored in a binhex stuffit >> format archive, once you unwrap it should be a nicely formatted MS Word >> 4.0 doc. >> > I think you're being unfair here with comments like this. My guess is that > somebody at Apple produced this document and just happened to be using MS > Word 4.0, and that was the easiest way to put that information on the server. You are probably right that the guy was being unfair - but I have to second the point made. I guess I will have to deal with binhex stuffit since this seems to be a thoroughly intrenched Mac-ism (and unix versions of the necessary tools are available) but MS word 4.0 is not likely to appear on my machine. Probably the files could be read without it, but they certainly would not be nicely formatted! -- Doug Tody, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9217 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!tody or uunet!noao.edu!tody Internet: tody@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::TODY (NOAO=5355)
brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) (08/23/90)
> Let me know what else you would like to see on the server. > ^^^ >With all due respect for the efforts of all the people doing this stuff, I'd >like to see files which don't alienate those of us attempting to port products >to an ostensibly ``UNIX'' platform. > >What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose textual material is >formatted per [nt]roff or TeX standards so that ANYONE can read and/or process >the material using the commonly available and/or "free" tools which accompany >one's system(s)? Yes, your right about the fact that everyone can run those utilities, but not everyone can easily create documents using those tools. >If apple.com has the disk space for both forms (stuffit, and compressed UNIX >archives), then by all means have both! But a proprietary format designated >for an expensive word processor smacks of "elitism" to me and controverts the >spirit of cooperativeness which has accompanied the UNIX environment since its >inception. The list is not even being kept on apple.com, its being kept on an Macintosh IIx running A/UX. Disk space is not the problem. >One answer to my query ("Is A/UX Viable?") several weeks ago suggested that >Apple is serious about UNIX. OK, I'm keeping an open mind; PROVE IT! >Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] All this just because you don't like the format??? All you had to do was ask for the listing in another format. I was trying to do the user community a favor by posting a document which is only available from AppleLink otherwise. I am not the keeper of the document nor the creator, I am but one support engineer at Apple who beleives that customers running A/UX have some special needs and support requirments, thats why I started the info/update server in the first place. Its a fairly large document that is really ugly when stored as text only file, I even spent an hour or so trying to clean it up before I decided that if I had to do this everytime the list was updated I would never get any real work done and the A/UX user community would never see this document. I hope that one of the reasons people will want to buy A/UX is for its great support and I'll do everything I can do to help provide that support. I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about native postscript? Kevin -- Kevin Brooks A/UX Specialist, Apple Computer UUCP: {mtxinu,sun,nsc,voder}!apple!brooks APPLELINK: AUX.DUDE@applelink.apple.com Internet: brooks@apple.com
jim@jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) (08/24/90)
In article <33093@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) in <44145@apple.Apple.COM> writes: > > I've just put a copy of the latest supported 3rd party products listing > on the A/UX info/update server. Its broken down by application type > and its actually getting preety large. Its stored in a binhex stuffit > format archive, once you unwrap it should be a nicely formatted MS Word > 4.0 doc. > >With all due respect for the efforts of all the people doing this stuff, I'd >like to see files which don't alienate those of us attempting to port products >to an ostensibly ``UNIX'' platform. > > ... misc belly-aching deleted... > >One answer to my query ("Is A/UX Viable?") several weeks ago suggested that >Apple is serious about UNIX. OK, I'm keeping an open mind; PROVE IT! > Hey Thad.... 1) Lighten up a little. Sorry we can't all be perfect like you and make everyone happy at the same time ;) 2) You say you're keeping an "open mind." Then you PROVE IT! Seems to me that you've already made up your mind. If you don't like Apple or Mac or A/UX that's your right. I know a lot of people who don't like IBM or Unix or VAX/VMS, etc... but that doesn't mean that I necessarily want to hear them constantly say how "crappy" the platform and in the same breath how "diplomatic" they are being in their opinions... 3) Are you implying that you DON'T want to see files that make use of A/UX 2.0's capabilities and, therefore, are not 100% portable. I think many people don't feel that way. If your point is that using traditional Mac programs to create/ maintain these files may prohibit some people from accessing them, then I agree... whether nroff files are the way to go, well.... I don't know. It's a LOT easier to maintain the files (and, let's admit it, make them "pretty" as for as formatting, etc...) using the Mac OS word processors... maybe TeachText would be a good compromise. -- ======================================================================= #include <std/disclaimer.h> =:^) Jim Jagielski NASA/GSFC, Code 711.1 jim@jagmac2.gsfc.nasa.gov Greenbelt, MD 20771 "Kilimanjaro is a pretty tricky climb. Most of it's up, until you reach the very, very top, and then it tends to slope away rather sharply."
wwedel@uswest.com (Wally Wedel) (08/24/90)
>What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose textual material is >formatted per [nt]roff or TeX standards so that ANYONE can read and/or process >the material using the commonly available and/or "free" tools which accompany >one's system(s)? What's wrong is that if someone has chosen to use the features available in Word or MacWrite to enhance the presentation, these features get lost in the translation to troff unless some agreed standards for conversion are put in place. I'd a lot rather have the original form documents with all of the presentation features which the writer put in place. When, and if, we get to the point where we have an agreed mapping between troff and RTF (or whatever) then conversion would be OK. --- Wally Wedel U S WEST Advanced Technologies 6200 S. Quebec, Ste. 420 Englewood, CO 80111 wwedel@uswest.com 303-889-6501
dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) (08/24/90)
In article <44203@apple.Apple.COM>, brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) writes: > I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about > native postscript? I'd like to see the file posted in postscript. I don't have Word, so having the postscript version would be nice. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself.
tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) (08/24/90)
From article <44203@apple.Apple.COM>, by brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks): > > I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about > native postscript? > > Kevin Postscript is the best choice by far for distributing complex formatted documents electronically, straight ascii text is best for simple documents. Postscript can be easily generated from almost any document source and most folks nowadays can get access to a Postscript printer or previewer. Thanks! -- Doug Tody, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9217 UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!tody or uunet!noao.edu!tody Internet: tody@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::TODY (NOAO=5355)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (08/24/90)
First I'd like to state I'm pleased to find that controversial opinions and statements CAN be posted to this newsgroup without incurring megabytes of flaming hate mail and counter-postings. Secondly, several emails have stated this newsgroup NEEDS a curmudgeon. Though I don't consider myself churlish, I have been known to "snipe" at Apple from time to time though I consider that more the role of a "Devil's Advocate." If there are no other volunteers, then let's continue with me as the "designated curmudgeon." :-) :-) OK, back to current issues, preceded by some background material. First, it's my contention that proprietary operating systems are dinosaurs and are doomed to a deserved dodo death within a decade. For example, witness DEC's declining earnings and the ensuing layoff of 8,000+ people as its customers are wising-up to the evils of VMS and are insisting upon open systems such as UNIX. And I'm no stranger to their (DEC's) OS's, having used them since 1963, and having written literally millions of lines of code of successful and profitable commercial software on their PDP-10, DEC-20, and VAX/VMS platforms. Even Apple itself has paid me and my company BIG BUCKS to use my software on their in-house machines (the same software which, by the way, I'm porting to A/UX among some other UNIX platforms). It wasn't until 5 years ago I had the wool lifted from my eyes and saw UNIX as one solution to much of what ails the computer industry. With software development costs reaching astronomical proportions, the ability to easily and quickly move, or port, applications to new hardware platforms sporting a conforming OS is literally a dream come true for both the software vendors and users! Though at technical meetings I joke "the nice thing about standards is there are so many from which to choose," UNIX is (becoming) a standard and its use is mandated by government procurement agencies; in a sense this reminds me how those same agencies brought IBM to its senses during the early 1960's by requiring support of the ASCII character set in all computers purchased by the US Government. And I'm not going to detail my present disappointment that A/UX is still SVR2/BSD4.2 based and doesn't (appear to) support the ABI (Application Binary Interface) featured in the latest SVR4; this fact will hurt Apple, as some recent news releases detail displacement of Mac-based A/UX boxes by SVR4-conforming UNIX boxes for undergrad use at places such as VPI (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)) (see the Aug. 20, 1990, UNIX TODAY). So what makes UNIX so attractive and desirable? Among its salient features are its multi-tasking and multi-user capabilities, and the wealth of communication and documentation tools that accompany each and every system; tools that (essentially) operate and function the same way in a system- and device-INDEPENDENT fashion. The benefits to all this are increased productivity, no new learning-curve start-up time losses, and a familiar and similar environment no matter whether one is using hardware manufactured by AT&T (SVR3 and SVR4), Hewlett-Packard (HP-UX), IBM (AIX), Amdahl (UTS), MIPS, DEC (Ultrix) and even Apple (A/UX) and Commodore (SVR4). With tools such as nroff or troff or TeX, I can process documents in a device-independent manner no matter whether I'm at the system console using a hi-res bit-mapped screen, remotely on an ANSI compatible CRT, locally to a 300DPI laser printer or a 1200DPI Linotronics, or even to a TTY 33ASR. With the DVI output of TeX, I can preview or print documents using any device at hand or within my budget. With termcap and/or terminfo capabilities handled OUTSIDE an application, one need not re-write the application to support new devices. I can log onto, for example, A/UX at the console and view "man" pages, or I can log in via the serial ports and ALSO view "man" pages without having done any more than identify my "terminal" in the TERM environmental variable. And these capabilities operate the SAME way on ANY UNIX system For the record, though my company has three Mac SE and two Mac II (with A/UX 2.0) systems, I've used the consoles less than 3 hours; most of my sessions with A/UX are "remote" via a network from my office or over a modem from home. Yeah, A/UX *IS* multitasking and multiuser! :-) :-) The UNIX user community EXPECTS that level of compatibility, similarity and familiarity. The UNIX community also expects the extensibility inherent with UNIX and its myriad shells, and is NOT going to look twice at any offering that denies that to which they're accustomed because they will find another source who WILL supply what they want. This is one of the benefits to the USER of UNIX' open system architecture (especially true with the advent of SVR4). And also for the record, I own and operate UNIX boxes from companies such as AT&T, Convergent, Motorola and UNISYS, and I use UNIX systems manufactured by HP, Amdahl, Sequent, Sun, and others, and, of course, Apple. :-) And I run the AT&T Silicon Valley UNIX Users' Group. Point being: I have a good feeling for "what's out there" and users' needs, wants, desires and gripes. With that groundwork established, let's examine the comments made concerning my response to Kevin Brooks' posting of the "binhex stuffit format archive." ---------- mgchow@Apple.COM (Mike Chow) [A/UX Engineering] in <44186@apple.Apple.COM> writes: `` I think you're being unfair here with comments like this. My guess is that somebody at Apple produced this document and just happened to be using MS Word 4.0, and that was the easiest way to put that information on the server. Yes I agree, it's a good idea to distribute these documents as simple compressed text files as well. But can't people just politely ask for a simple change without accusations and inuendos? '' Kevin invited comments, and I expressed my opinions based on my experience with UNIX. Though simply uploading the "binhex stuffit" may have been the easiest way to make the information available, it does naught for those without the proprietary tools to peruse the document. If Kevin feels my comments were "impolite", then I'll apologize to HIM. It's MY contention that material intended for a UNIX audience be UNIX-compatible. Please describe how I could view a MS Word 4.0 document calling in on an Ethernet or serial port using a VT100. With [nt]roff or TeX it'd be no problem; even better would be texinfo.tex format so I could use the info "subsystem" within Emacs. ---------- tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody CCS) [National Optical Astronomy Observatories] in <1990Aug23.073331.282@noao.edu> writes: `` You are probably right that the guy [me ! :-) ] was being unfair - but I have to second the point made. I guess I will have to deal with binhex stuffit since this seems to be a thoroughly intrenched Mac-ism (and unix versions of the necessary tools are available) but MS word 4.0 is not likely to appear on my machine. Probably the files could be read without it, but they certainly would not be nicely formatted! '' "All's fair in business and war!" And MS Word 4.0 is not on my machine either, because I'm concerned ONLY about the UNIX aspects of the system. ---------- brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) [A/UX Specialist, Apple Computer] in <44203@apple.Apple.COM> writes: `` >What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose textual >material is formatted per [nt]roff or TeX standards so that ANYONE >can read and/or process the material using the commonly available >and/or "free" tools which accompany one's system(s)? Yes, your right about the fact that everyone can run those utilities, but not everyone can easily create documents using those tools. '' I'd be happy to show you how to use Emacs with its macro capability to easily create source documents for use with either [nt]roff or TeX. My primary concern is for those of us who need to READ the finished product. With any of [nt]roff or TeX, it's trivial. `` All this just because you don't like the format??? All you had to do was ask for the listing in another format. '' I DID! :-) `` I was trying to do the user community a favor by posting a document which is only available from AppleLink otherwise. I am not the keeper of the document nor the creator, I am but one support engineer at Apple who beleives that customers running A/UX have some special needs and support requirments, thats why I started the info/update server in the first place. '' And you have my hearty thanks, both for your efforts and your attitudes! I did say "With all due respect ..." `` Its a fairly large document that is really ugly when stored as text only file, I even spent an hour or so trying to clean it up before I decided that if I had to do this everytime the list was updated I would never get any real work done and the A/UX user community would never see this document. '' You've nicely summed up the REAL PROBLEM. I'm not being critical here, the same problem exists within my own company regarding its documentation. Now's the time to start making changes with operating procedures so we all DON'T have to waste time reformatting and cleaning up documentation ever again. Hey, I, too, would rather be USING the computer rather than dorking around with eleventy-seven word processing protocols. Adopt ONE and stick with it. My recommendation would be TeX since it's available for every computer (except, perhaps, that VIC-20 with PET-ASCII :-) `` I hope that one of the reasons people will want to buy A/UX is for its great support and I'll do everything I can do to help provide that support. I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about native postscript? Kevin '' Is "native postscript" compatible with ghostscript? Please reconsider; let's not start introducing other potential incompatibilities or inconveniences for your intended audience. In the just-received August 1990 Apple Developer Mailing (yeah, I'm an Apple Partner to the tune of some $600/year), Apple iterates and re-iterates the evils of ASSUMING what the user has/needs/wants. One is NOT to assume a given screen size or resolution. One is NOT to assume the presence of a math coprocessor given a non-MC68000 chip. One is NOT to assume the printer characteristics for documents. And we all know what Benny Hill says about the word "ASSUME." :-) :-) The whole point of the decades of thought and the shared-body of experiences that went into the creation of tools such as [nt]roff and TeX is that the products WILL function in a device-INDEPENDENT manner for present and future compatibility and ease of use. And the fact these tools are available at essentially no cost does NOT mean they're junk. DEC's user manuals are all produced with TeX, as are the books from Addison-Wesley, and much of the US Government-funded research projects, and most (if not all) the article submissions for the computer technical journals of the ACM, IEEE, ACL, etc. ---------- wwedel@uswest.com (Wally Wedel) [U S WEST Advanced Technologies] in <10564@uswat.UUCP> writes: `` >What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose ... What's wrong is that if someone has chosen to use the features available in Word or MacWrite to enhance the presentation, these features get lost in the translation to troff unless some agreed standards for conversion are put in place. I'd a lot rather have the original form documents with all of the presentation features which the writer put in place. When, and if, we get to the point where we have an agreed mapping between troff and RTF (or whatever) then conversion would be OK. --- Wally Wedel '' Precisely. If one wishes to seriously enter, say, the UNIX marketplace, then one better rid oneself of "old" mindsets and preconceived notions and take a look at what's really out there and what's being used and wanted. It's my suggestion that (at least) future documents be composed using tool(s) available to the community at large. The marketplace will render its decisions concerning products that don't meet the needs, requirements or expectations of that market. Thad Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (08/25/90)
In article <33093@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > One answer to my query ("Is A/UX Viable?") several weeks ago suggested that > Apple is serious about UNIX. OK, I'm keeping an open mind; PROVE IT! Geez, as a famous Computer Scientist once said, "kick back, drink a beer, and then respond." Chill dude. Take it easy. Sheesh... Just as having uuencoded stuff alienates Mac users... Think about it. Yes I agree with you, there needs to be a way to store all of this in several different formats. This would be better for everyone, that is a good suggestion. But you sort of went off the deep end here. Take your frustrations out on a can of beer, then write stuff like this. You will feel better and not look so silly... :-)-- Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 703.709.9896 FAX
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (08/25/90)
In article <101.26d40a83@skbat.csc.ti.com>, dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com (Eric Dittman) writes: > In article <44203@apple.Apple.COM>, brooks@Apple.COM (Kevin Brooks) writes: > > I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about > > native postscript? > > I'd like to see the file posted in postscript. I don't have Word, so > having the postscript version would be nice. > > Eric Dittman > Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility > dittman@skitzo.csc.ti.com > dittman@skbat.csc.ti.com > > Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test > Facility. I don't even speak for myself. Gee someone who knows how to ask for something. This is the way to lower everyones blood pressure. -- Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 703.709.9896 FAX
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (08/25/90)
In article <33162@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > `` All this just because you don't like the format??? All you had to do > was ask for the listing in another format. > '' > > I DID! :-) Pardon me, but no you didn't. You managed to be a flaming ****head about it. Sheesh whatever happened to manners? Huh, just because this is a piece of glass in front of me doesn't mean that I have to loose my manners? I usually ask nicely, before I let loose with a flame. Sheesh trying to cover your useless inflamitory comments with :-)'s just doesn't hack it. Try to be NICE next time. If you want to be a devils advocate then be so, but that doesn't mean that you have to be rude. As to appologizing to that person, fine do that to HIM, but do it to the rest of use on the net that had to "hear" look at what you wrote. Sheesh talk about an ego... -- Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 703.709.9896 FAX
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (08/27/90)
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: [misc items] This seems to be a good launching point for something that's been kicking around in the back of my head ever since I've started working seriously with more than one O/S. This whole thread was started over the not-so-trivial issue of the format of a data file. Now, having come from a p(ersonal) c(omputer) background, I've had to deal with this type of problem from the start. Convert a (PC) 1-2-3 spreadsheet file to a (Mac) Excel file. Appleworks word-proc to [MacWrite/Word/FullWrite]. You name it, it's been attempted. First you had to overcome the media barrier, then you could deal with the (often simpler) process of reading the file. Companies/developers heard these complaints, and responded. If you can't directly read the foreign file from within the program, there are interchange formats available. Now, this was fine and dandy when your O/S's were fairly distinct; your UNIX machines were at work, accessed through workstations or serial lines, and your pc's were at work/home, and the only means of tranferring files across was via serial line. But things change. Now we've got our Macs running A/UX, storing files on our SUN fileservers. We've got PCs using pcNFS to do the same. No longer is it the simple matter of uploading the text file to the UNIX box to print it out or edit it. Now, since it's already on the UNIX box, you want to edit it directly. But wait, you can't, because it's stored in MicroSoft Word 4.0 format. Worse yet, under A/UX, we encounter a variation on the media barrier; the file storage problem (AppleSingle/AppleDouble). What we need here, obviously, is conversion programs/filters to deal with this. Considering that A/UX is just really getting its second (first?) wind, I'm not too surprised to find a lack of conversion programs. What I do find a bit surprising is the amount of ...resistance... that appears to exist towards dealing with these problems. I'll grant you, [pt]roff may be wonderful tools for writing manuals and such, but one of the features of using a Mac is that you don't have to delve into the arcane to produce results. >Please describe how I could view a MS Word 4.0 document calling in on an >Ethernet or serial port using a VT100. With [nt]roff or TeX it'd be no >problem; even better would be texinfo.tex format so I could use the info >"subsystem" within Emacs. You run the document through 'msword2tex' or 'msword2troff', and do whatever you want with it. (well, yes, you'll have to find them first..) >"All's fair in business and war!" And MS Word 4.0 is not on my machine >either, because I'm concerned ONLY about the UNIX aspects of the system. Ah. Well, throw away the A portion of A/UX then. Why are you running A/UX if you're only concerned with UNIX? (yes, sarcasm. apologies in advance.) >Hey, I, too, would rather be USING the computer rather than dorking around >with eleventy-seven word processing protocols. Adopt ONE and stick with it. >My recommendation would be TeX since it's available for every computer(except, >perhaps, that VIC-20 with PET-ASCII :-) Ever hear of the 'build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door'? The modern day version of that is 'Build a better word processor and the world will beat a path to your door.' UNIX is where it is today because nothing better has shown up. Don't FORCE people to choose ONE protocol (sic). You've got two large user bases here, Mac OS and UNIX. I can't see either totally succumbing to the other, and can't say that I want to. You can't go and automagically change all the Macintosh Word Processing documents into TeX. You can, however, have tools that allow you to change X into Y... > I'll see about posting the list in a few different formats, how about > native postscript? > Kevin >Is "native postscript" compatible with ghostscript? Please reconsider; let's >not start introducing other potential incompatibilities or inconveniences for >your intended audience. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ghostscript based on PostScript? >The whole point of the decades of thought and the shared-body of experiences >that went into the creation of tools such as [nt]roff and TeX is that the >products WILL function in a device-INDEPENDENT manner for present and future >compatibility and ease of use. And the fact these tools are available at >essentially no cost does NOT mean they're junk. DEC's user manuals are all >produced with TeX, as are the books from Addison-Wesley, and much of the US >Government-funded research projects, and most (if not all) the article >submissions for the computer technical journals of the ACM, IEEE, ACL, etc. Aye, good point here. But, I'll pit a seasoned Word 4.0 writer against a seasoned [nt]roff writer any day. Especially after Word 4.1 comes out, with the option to save the file in [nt]roff format or TeX format. :-) My understanding of the wide acceptance of the Macintosh is that it's easy to learn. Can you say that about [nt]roff? (I'm not bashing [nt]roff, just making a point) >`` >What's wrong with compressed cpio or tar archives whose ... > What's wrong is that if someone has chosen to use the features > available in Word or MacWrite to enhance the presentation, these > features get lost in the translation to troff unless some agreed > standards for conversion are put in place. I'd a lot rather have the > original form documents with all of the presentation features which > the writer put in place. When, and if, we get to the point where we > have an agreed mapping between troff and RTF (or whatever) then > conversion would be OK. --- Wally Wedel >'' Aha! Someone isn't completely in the dark... >Precisely. If one wishes to seriously enter, say, the UNIX marketplace, >then one better rid oneself of "old" mindsets and preconceived notions and >take a look at what's really out there and what's being used and wanted. >It's my suggestion that (at least) future documents be composed using tool(s) >available to the community at large. The marketplace will render its decisions >concerning products that don't meet the needs, requirements or expectations >of that market. Ah. Well, okay, but I want to see you try and pry Word away from one of our people, or TeX from another. We've got 3-5 'word processors' in steady use here: [nt]roff, [La]TeX, Scribe, Word 4.0, and MacWrite. Toss in FrameMaker and PageMaker while you're at it. It'd be much simpler all around if there was only one. But there isn't. And it would cost a lot of time to train these people to use THE word processor. Additionally, you can't recover the time spent training, nor the confusion caused by switching programs. What it boils down to is this: Standards are great. But they aren't retroactive. They can't change existing programs, data files, or ways of doing things. Until/when/if the standard gets 100% accepted, you are going to need programs/ways to translate between X and The Standard. >Thad >Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ] So, now that we've got this out of the way, has anybody written a utility for the AppleSingle & AppleDouble files? I've got these Mac sounds stored on our fileserver, and I want to use them on my Sparc. :) Coding starts in a week. I've got the specs in hand... :-) (Now, if only there were RFCs detailing word processing formats... :( ) Food For Thought... --Chan Chan Wilson SRI Intl. Network Information Systems Center 333 Ravenswood Ave., EK289 Internet: cwilson@nisc.sri.com Menlo Park, CA., 94025 Phone: (415)859-5921
liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts) (08/29/90)
If we are allowing "elitist proprietary formats", how about a HyperCard stack - at least the Viewer came free with the machine :-) Seriously though, I view HyperCard as a big bonus for A/UX over other UNIX boxes with desktops, and it seems well suited to this sort of "reference book" application. -- William Roberts ARPA: liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk Queen Mary & Westfield College UUCP: liam@qmw-cs.UUCP Mile End Road AppleLink: UK0087 LONDON, E1 4NS, UK Tel: 071-975 5250 (Fax: 081-980 6533)