DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET (09/04/90)
First, I'd like to apologize to Don Hosek for not-quite-deservedly jumping and flaming him for saying that emTeX drivers don't use PK: he surely was mistaken, and considering how much volunteer work he does answering everyone's questions and maintaining TeX repositories; many thanks to him for the terrific job he's doing. Surely he's entitled to make mistakes every once in a while, and everyone is entitled to point out such mistakes... Still... Now, let me relate to the readers of this newsgroup a story, which, I hope, is not too long or boring. I should probably start by mentioning that I'm a doctoral student in math, and I support my family (and my addiction to expensive computer hardware:) by owning with my wife a software consulting company. I have a client who puts out a large number of newsletters, brochures, and the like. (Interestingly, the job I do for them has to do with math, not all all with text processing, or else I'd have straightened them out long ago:). When I first came there, I noticed how they produced their newsletter... It involved at the time 3 young women who used Aldus Pagemaker under MS-DOS to prepare the few pages. Most of their work consists of printing out a document on a laset printer, looking at the printout, fixing a few page breaks, moving things around with a mouse, printout out again, until everything is positioned where they want it. The resulting documents are mailed to various subsets of an about 1000-name mailing list, and it is understood that they become obsolete within a few weeks and are thrown away by the recepients. I once observed how the young woman in charge of this desktop publishing group printed out the same document 3 times trying to ensure that a header was centered on the page. She was loudly complaining that in a WYSIWYG system she cannot accurately position the text with the mouse, and what seemed centered on the screen was not centered on the printout. I informed her that there's this absolutely great typesetting system called TeX, where she could easily solve this problem using the \centerline command; and that indeed TeX would be perfectly suitable for the kinds of documents they produce (which involve lots of texts and a few tables, numbers, and simple math formulas). She became extremely agitated and said that she's heard about TeX and 1) it's extremely expensive, 2) she doesn't want me to mention the existence of better alternatives for DTP to the management because then the company would no longer need 3 people to position things on the page by trial and error. At that time, I figured it's none of my business (and I really was supposed to be doing something unrelated). (Yes, I conjectured that PM may have a command to center text on a page, but she wasn't using it. I'm not familiar with PM.) This particular young woman left the company some time later, and now makes very good money at another company performing similar tasks on a Macintosh with Microsoft Works. Later on, I became aware that the company was planning to expand its newsletter-writing operation and was considering getting software other than PM. I approached the person doing the decision-making and proposed that I show her how TeX can make their lives easier. She appreciated my interest, but responded with the following statements: * She too is familiar with TeX, believes that TeX would be the perfect system for the task at hand, and would prefer to use it. * However, they have a limited budget, and getting TeX, device drivers for laser printer and a dot matrix printer, screen previwer, and appripriate fonts would cost well over $1K, and they don't want to spend this kind of money at the time. * She has never heard of freely copiable TeX's for MS-DOS, she doubts that such things exist or are comparable to commercial implementations, but she'd like to see it in principle. You will kindly recall that the majority of TeX (and non-TeX-DTP) users out there in the real world have no access to Usenet, TeXhax, UKTeX, and get most of their information on TeX from TUGBoat or people that read TUGBoat. The anecdotal evidence above suggests that this group of people is given a version of MS-DOS TeX reality that's very different from the reality as I (and, hopefully, most people familiar with the subject) perceive it. The impression one gets from reading TUGBoat is that, indeed, one needs to spend *considerably* more $$$ on software to buy a working TeX for MS-DOS than for buying PageMaker or Ventura Publisher or WordPerfect... There's *no mention* of freely distributed TeX's for MS-DOS of equal quality. Here are some ways in which these TeX sellers hurt our community: * they rip off those ignorant of the existence of better alternatives. People buy their TeX's instead of spending their computer budget on something they really need. (Note that buyers of commercial TeXs are ignorant / not too bright through no fault of theirs.) * they prevent the spread of TeX. People who've spent $2,000 on software are less likely to give free copies to others. * they prevent programmers from releasing the results of their work into the public domain. People are reluctant to make their programs publicly available for fear that someone will start selling them; or at least they distribute them without the source code. It's sad that TUGBoat is in effect aiding and abetting these dishonest and unscrupulous individuals (who should be denounced and ostracized). I am definitely not suggesting that there is a conscious conspiracy on the part of TUGBoat to suppress the the truth about the availability of TeX for MS-DOS. :) (I think I know the people involved too well to believe that.) However, I have stated time and again that the large number of ads for commercial MS-DOS TeX's, and simultaneous disappearance of all mentions of free TeX's (the combination that gives a reader a totally false impression about TeX's availability) look extremely improper and make everyone doubt TUGBoat's credibility. I have raised these questions with Barbara Beeton and with Alan Hoenig, and with all my deep respect and admiration for these folks, I'm really not satisfied with their repsonses. I suggest that TUGBoat should refuse to run ads for commercial TeX-related products when equivalent products for the same platform can be had for free. (An example of such a product would be the $450 WordPerfect-to-TeX translator.) Such ads constitute only a small protion of TUGBoat ads. Regarding the suggestion that TUGBoat is a volunteer effort, and is not obligated to inform its readers about the existence of public-domain software: I'd like to point out that I (and most readers) pay for TUGBoat; in fact, I pay more for it than I pay for Newsweek, New York Magazine, or Insight. :) I am very unhappy that it gives its readers a false impression by publishing those ads (really intended for suckers who don't know any better) and *not* tellings its readers that better alternatives exist; that's a job very poorly done. I've told various people involved about my concerns, now I'm posting this to a newsgroup, and if the situation doesn't change, I'll just stop getting TUGBoat due to lack of credibility. Happy flaming, Dimitri Vulis CUNY GC Math
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (09/05/90)
In article <9009040308.AA06677@lilac.berkeley.edu>, DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes... >Here are some ways in which these TeX sellers hurt our community: >* they rip off those ignorant of the existence of better alternatives. >People buy their TeX's instead of spending their computer budget on >something they really need. (Note that buyers of commercial TeXs are >ignorant / not too bright through no fault of theirs.) If someone spends the money to purchase, say Textures ($495) rather than getting a copy of OzTeX, what do they get for their money? Well for one thing, they can call up Blue Sky Research (a toll-free number, no less) and get help. For those people who aren't on the net, this is a kind of important thing. Personal TeX and Arbortext offer this service, and I'm sure other vendors do as well. I would not purchase software from any company that did _not_ offer phone support. (Support is a big issue, for many groups, which is why most companies are not using home-built computers running public domain software for everything.) >* they prevent the spread of TeX. People who've spent $2,000 on software >are less likely to give free copies to others. Well, I sure hope so. Duplicating commercial software and distributing it is a violation of international copyright law. >* they prevent programmers from releasing the results of their work into the >public domain. People are reluctant to make their programs publicly >available for fear that someone will start selling them; or at least they >distribute them without the source code. Actually, I think that programmers who release source-less software would release that software source-less under any circumstances, even without TeX vendors. I'm only aware of one programmer's rationale for an executable-only distribution and his reasoning was that he wanted to make sure that parallel versions of the software didn't emerge. >It's sad that TUGBoat is in effect aiding and abetting these dishonest and >unscrupulous individuals (who should be denounced and ostracized). I am >definitely not suggesting that there is a conscious conspiracy on the part >of TUGBoat to suppress the the truth about the availability of TeX for >MS-DOS. :) (I think I know the people involved too well to believe that.) >However, I have stated time and again that the large number of ads for >commercial MS-DOS TeX's, and simultaneous disappearance of all mentions of >free TeX's (the combination that gives a reader a totally false impression >about TeX's availability) look extremely improper and make everyone doubt >TUGBoat's credibility. I have raised these questions with Barbara Beeton and >with Alan Hoenig, and with all my deep respect and admiration for these >folks, I'm really not satisfied with their repsonses. >I suggest that TUGBoat should refuse to run ads for commercial TeX-related >products when equivalent products for the same platform can be had for free. >(An example of such a product would be the $450 WordPerfect-to-TeX >translator.) Such ads constitute only a small protion of TUGBoat ads. Let's see, TUGboat 11#1: TeXpic. This is a pic-like package for TeX. gpic also offers this capability. Can't keep that ad. TUG. I guess we'll let them advertise. Arbortext. They aren't offering any specific products but I think there are public domain equivalents to almost everything they sell. Better prevent them from advertising. VTeX. Don't know of any version of TeX that has the font capabilities of VTeX. (although, personally, I don't think the extended capabilities are that useful anyway.) We'll let them keep the ad, but only temporarily since the president of the company said something about releasing the font technology to the public domain at the TUG meeting. Capture. Takes HPGL and makes PK files out of it (I think that's the deal.) John McClaine mentioned some stuff that Texas A&M has, but I don't think any of it is for HPGL and Pat Wilcox's software is shareware (or is it). We'll let them keep it, but only if they go to half page ads. Personal TeX. I guess this will have to go. But they cqan keep the Fontware stuff (Bitstream font to PK conversion software). Type 2000. Typesetting service. We'll let them advertise. LAmS-TeX. Well, pieces of it are public domain, but I guess enough of it is not available freely that we can let them advertise. T2xxx drivers. Nope. Those are all available for free. AmSTeX and fonts. Hmm, the charge here is largely duplicating costs. Can they keep their ad Dimitri? TeX plus. That's out. Publishing Companion. (This is a $250 WP to TeX converter. Public Domain TeX. But they're charging! Is $92 too much for a tape of stuff one can FTP? Computer Composition Corporation. Typesetters again. TurboTeX. That'll have to go. AP-TeX fonts. Bitmap versions of the 35 basic PostScript fonts. I guess that can stay. TeX publishing Services. More typesetting DeskJet driver for TeX. Nope, there's already a PD version. Textures. Nope, they can use OzTeX. There goes half of TUG's advertising income. >Regarding the suggestion that TUGBoat is a volunteer effort, and is not >obligated to inform its readers about the existence of public-domain >software: I'd like to point out that I (and most readers) pay for TUGBoat; >in fact, I pay more for it than I pay for Newsweek, New York Magazine, or >Insight. :) I am very unhappy that it gives its readers a false impression >by publishing those ads (really intended for suckers who don't know any >better) and *not* tellings its readers that better alternatives exist; >that's a job very poorly done. I've told various people involved about my >concerns, now I'm posting this to a newsgroup, and if the situation doesn't >change, I'll just stop getting TUGBoat due to lack of credibility. Dimitri. They DO TELL READERS. How many times do I have to point out the articles? There could be more articles, yes, but somebody has to write them, c'est ne pas? I think the bigger fault lies in things like the review of TeX for the PC that only looked at PCTeX, $\mu$-TeX, CTeX and TurboTeX. Now for some comments on behalf of commercial versions of TeX. I've mentioned support already as being a big factor. It's more than just being able to call up the company. Have you ever seen the PCTeX manual? It's an outstanding presentation of how to use TeX. TurboTeX and the Northlake Software VMS TeX both come with excellant installation manuals. It's difficult to match that with something distributed for free on disk or FTP. Consider someone who hasn't clued in to the fact that there is a way to center text in Pagemaker (I don't know this for certain, but I'd imagine any package not supplying this feature would be quickly laughed off the market) and give them a bunch of files in ZIP format and tell them to get it running. Another thing on behalf of commercial vendors of TeX is that they have a tendency to enter new areas before the PD people (this isn't always the case, but is often enough to point out that it happens). Without the pioneering efforts of David Fuchs and Lance Carnes, people might be claiming that TeX can't be run on a microcomputer. Textures was the only TeX for the Macintosh for two years. Much of the current spread of TeX is due to the efforts of Addison-Wesley and Personal TeX. Blue Sky Research is trying to make TeX a player in the graphic design realm of typography. Bob Harris of Micro Programs has brought TeX to the world of Kennel Clubs and is continually seeking out new markets. You complained (in a section that I cut out) that the people you talked to perceived TeX as being an expensive system... without the commercial vendors, I claim they wouldn't even know TeX existed (or if they did, would think of it as some Unix thing like troff). Instead of saying that you're going to cancel your membership and asking TUG to not carry advertising, let's hear some practical suggestions. What should TUG do to promote public domain TeX? All I see in your note is suggestions that commercial vendors not be allowed to advertise. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET (09/06/90)
I will comment on some points raised here and then will try to quiesce my contributions to this thread until BB comes back. (It's not nice to criticize a person who's not here and can't reply.) (Many thanks to Dorothy Monks and everyone else who shares my concerns to some extent.) I am very happy to see the list of TeX's for MS-DOS that Don Hosek composed! I very much hope to see it in TUGBoat's next issue (#3). (With or without further comparisons of performance and features). It's absolutely not true that TUGBoat pushes commercial TeX's only through advertisements. I too looked through the latest issue (#2) and I saw, e.g., the following on p. 312: >Vectox TeX >retains all the advantages of TeX plus: >--- saves megabytes of storage---entire VTeX fits on one floppy; >--- instantly generate any font in any size and in any variation from 5 to >90 points; >--- standard font effects include compression, slant, smallcaps, outline >and shading. New: shadow; >--- Discover the universe of MicroPress professional typefaces: not >available for any other TeX. This is EDITORIAL COPY, not a PAID AD. Now, it says on p. 310: ``These product descriptions were takem, for the most part, from the publishers' announcements''. If this were a promotional leaflet, a reader would just dismiss it as bad ad (doesn't sound like truth) written by someone who speaks very poor English; but quoting such material in editorial copy is inappropriate, and makes one question the publication's credibility. Why doesn't TUGBoat similarly reprint README files from emTeX, SBTeX, et al? (I don't think it should, but that would be the easiest way to make its readers aware of their existence, if no one is willing to write something original about them!) In fact, I looked through the entire #2, and found no mention of John Radel, or emTeX, or SBTeX, or Unix TeX distribution from U of Washington. Selling TeX's is not an honest way to make money. While it's not in the public domain, its source code is published, comes with excellent comments, and is available in machine-readable form. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a runnable TeX for MS-DOS, nor is it so hard to produce DVITYPE-based device drivers (better yet, Beebe-based:). (Having tried this, I know this is so.) (That's why there are so many TeX ports out there!) (Heck, Don Knuth and Addison Wesley would have terrific copyright infringement cases against some folks; too bad they're not likely to sue!:) Very few people would pay hundreds of dollars for an MS-DOS TeX implementation knowing they can get TeX and device drivers of comparable quality from Eberhard Mattes or John Radel. In fact, whether I come across a PCTeX user (I have nothing against PCI, they're fine folks, it's just their there are so many of their users out there:) and tell her that there's an absolutely free SBTeX which is just as good as what she's using, the user gets really mad that she spent so much money. It's perfectly fine to sell *enhancements* to TeX, e.g., PCI's programs for converting BITSTREAM fonts into PK files. But selling TeX itself, or plain vanilla device drivers, is a scam. In effect, TeX sellers prey on the ignorance of the TeX community at large. I'm really sorry to see that TUGBoat promotes this ignorance by promoting commercial TeX's and not even mentioning the existence of free alternatives. Most TeX users don't have access to the nets and get their information about TeX directly from TUGBoat or indirectly from those who read TUGBoat. TUGBoat misinforms these people, and does a great disservice to the TeX community. Don Hosek claims that TUGBoat has become dependent on advertizing money. (This sounds a bit like a health magazine dependent on cigarette advertizing and not publishing any papers about tobacco's harmful effects. Lack of integrity/credibility, or lack of submissions? :) First, not all ads in TUGBoat are for commercial implementations of TeX: typical ads seem to be for a DVI-to-typesetter services, macro packages, and the like. Second, if you don't stop running ads for these TeX sellers, it'll cost you considerably more---the remainder of your (already tainted) credibility. Regarding the suggestion that the people putting TUGBoar together do it for free and hence don't have to do a good job, I personally would prefer that they be paid and do a better job. (We do pay for the fruits of their labor.) Dimitri Vulis CUNY GC Math
kcb@hss.caltech.edu (KC Border) (09/06/90)
In article <9009051759.AA07088@lilac.berkeley.edu> DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes: > >Selling TeX's is not an honest way to make money. While it's not in the >public domain, its source code is published, comes with excellent comments, >and is available in machine-readable form. It doesn't take a rocket >scientist to make a runnable TeX for MS-DOS, nor is it so hard to produce >DVITYPE-based device drivers (better yet, Beebe-based:). (Having tried this, >I know this is so.) (That's why there are so many TeX ports out there!) > Enough is enough, Dimitri. You've had your say. Now will you quit filling up this news group with your whining? Please. -- an innocent bystander kcb@hss.caltech.edu Kim C. Border kcb@hss.caltech.edu Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences
DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET (09/06/90)
OK, I'll byte. :) Here's a constructive suggestion: print a directory of known free and low-cost TeX's for all systems (not just MS-DOS) in every issue of TUGBoat. If there are no updates, just reprint the last month's directory. Start with the list of MS-DOS TeX's you just posted, add OZ TeX for the Mac, Unix TeX from U of Washington, et al. Does it sound good, or is TUGBoat scared of its commercial TeX advertizers? :) (As a variation of the above, you might want to run a directory of all known sources of TeX, free and commercial, using vendor-supplied information. (Provided the information is in good taste---i.e., price and availability, not unsubstantiated claims.) How much space would this take? 5 pages? 10 pages of every issue? Regarding the question: who put in more free time, I'm sure you've donated more of your time and effort to helping TeX users than almost anyone, and certainly more than myself!!! I want you to know that your efforts are really appreciated, and I hope that the fact that you've helped so many people makes you feel good. Still, this doesn't give you the right to post unsolicited promotional materials (and since you say the .sig never brought you any clients, this is one more reason to change it). [I should note for comparison that if I multiplied the hours I've spent on various aspects of Russian TeX: polishing the hyphenation patterns, digging up obscure non-Slavic Cyrillic writing systems, helping RusTeX users via e-mail and more often the phone by, say, $50, I too would come up with an impressive amount. I've also spent hunderds of $$$'s on phone calls to the USSR (~$2/minute) and on snailing new versions of software there (that's $10.75 a shot), and I haven't made a cent off it, and don't expect to. And I'm not bitching!! :) Of course I'd never think of comparing my contributions with yours. ] Regarding the phone support for commercial TeX's: I'm afraid I'm going to have to rely on anecdotal evidence again... Not being a licencee of any commercial TeX, I've never tried any company's phone support. However I am acquainted with a number of licencees of PCTeX and other commercially available business programs (things like Microsoft Excel, Lotus 123, etc). I don't know anyone who's ever called PCI for tech support. I'm sure that PCI people are very nice and would provide excellent support if needed. I know for a fact that Kinch people are extremely nice (they sent me a thank you note for something PD that I uploaded somewhere :). But let me waste a bit more bandwidth and tell you about an experience with phone support I've had a few months ago. I was installing a LAN using the hardware from a certain 3-letter manufacturer and the software from a certain 1-digit and 3-letter manufacturer :), and the software consitently claimed that all the hardware malfunctioned, even though it passed the 3-letter manufacturer's extensive diagnostics. We've called the tech support a number of times, and every time they told us that we must have set certain software parameters incorrectly and we must experiment with all possible switch values to find the one that works. After we've exhausted all possible combinations, they told us that we must be doing something really wrong and that perhaps we should talk to an "engineer"; that'd cost us $150 per hour of fraction thereof. We agreed, and the converation went approximately like this: I: I can't get any of out X cards to work with your network software... S: Do you have card X? I: Yes. S: Do you have software version N? I: Yes. S: Hold on. ... S: Versions before N+1 don't work with card X. Our documentation is in error and our technical support didn't know this. You must upgrade. The entire conversation lasted 3 minutes, about half of which time I was on hold. They charged us $150 for the answr, and another $800 for the software upgrade (which works as documented). Now, I'm not suggesting that all software publishers are like this :), but I think that a new TeX user is better off getting a free TeX, and if she runs into a problem, get help from consultant who bills for services rendered (such is yourself:), not pay hundreds of dollars for the right for phone support that she'll prbably never use. Or at the very least the user has the right to know that this option is available. Yes, the PCTeX manual is excellent, and, unless I'm mistaken, is available separately. Let me give you another piece of anecdotal evidence. Before I went away to play golf in August, I gave a bunch of SBTeX diskettes to someone I know who's nearly computer illiterate. He successfully unzipped them, and was churning out fine-looking papers within 3 days, using no help, and no documentation other than "TeX for the impatient" (an excellent book too, by the way). If you heard some of the questions about MS-DOS he's asked me since I've come back, you'd agree that if he can use TeX to produce papers with no phone support, then anyone can. :) (Hey! Here's an idea for all you enterpreneurs out there: start a 1-900-TeX-HELP number. .5:) Dimitri Vulis CUNY GC Math
cotner@skippy.berkeley.edu (09/06/90)
In article <1990Sep5.230708.7798@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> kcb@hss.caltech.edu (KC Border) writes: >In article <9009051759.AA07088@lilac.berkeley.edu> DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes: >> >>Selling TeX's is not an honest way to make money. While it's not in the >>public domain, its source code is published, comes with excellent comments, >>and is available in machine-readable form. It doesn't take a rocket >>scientist to make a runnable TeX for MS-DOS, nor is it so hard to produce >>DVITYPE-based device drivers (better yet, Beebe-based:). (Having tried this, >>I know this is so.) (That's why there are so many TeX ports out there!) >> > >Enough is enough, Dimitri. You've had your say. Now will you quit >filling up this news group with your whining? Please. > >-- an innocent bystander >kcb@hss.caltech.edu >Kim C. Border >kcb@hss.caltech.edu I don't know if I agree with everything Dimitri says, but he has raised some important questions. I certainly wouldn't call it whining. I do know that I would be pretty upset had I spent lots of money for something which is inferior to emTeX. TUG should make the availability of emTeX clear to its members. I don't care about placing blame, but emTeX is great and TUG should say so. Also innocent, Carl Cotner cotner@berkeley.math.edu
david@doe.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) (09/07/90)
In article <9009040308.AA06677@lilac.berkeley.edu> DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes: > >I once observed how the young woman in charge of this desktop publishing >group printed out the same document 3 times trying to ensure that a header >was centered on the page. She was loudly complaining that in a WYSIWYG >system she cannot accurately position the text with the mouse, and what >seemed centered on the screen was not centered on the printout. I am just learning TeX, and I like it very much, but I have to say that the reason this woman was having problems is that her DTP program is _NOT_ true WYSIWYG. To be WYSIWYG, a DTP program must be capable of showing the _same_ fonts on the screen as on the printer. My DTP program (Calamus on the Atari ST) uses the same Compugraphic outline fonts for screen and printer, and allows you to zoom in the screen so that it corresponds pixel-for-pixel with the printer output, whatever the resolution. I understand that Macs are starting to use outline fonts in their DTP programs too, but that they are much slower than Calamus's fonts. In any case, the woman's problem was a bad IMPLEMENTATION, not a bad CONCEPT (I may use TeX for my thesis, but never for a complex display ad). David Megginson david@doe.utoronto.ca meggin@vm.epas.utoronto.ca
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (09/07/90)
Dimitri, you have some valid complaints. But I think you are overstating them. > Selling TeX's is not an honest way to make money. While it's not in > the public domain, its source code is published, comes with excellent > comments, and is available in machine-readable form. It doesn't take a > rocket scientist to make a runnable TeX for MS-DOS, nor is it so hard > to produce DVITYPE-based device drivers (better yet, Beebe-based:). Piffle. It may not take a rocket scientist, but it takes time. I bought a commercial version for my Amiga even tho I knew about the free versions. I bought it because I knew it would work right away, because of the support, and because of the enhancements. > Very few people would pay hundreds of dollars for an MS-DOS TeX > implementation knowing they can get TeX and device drivers of > comparable quality from Eberhard Mattes or John Radel. That doesn't make it wrong to sell it to those who want support. > Regarding the suggestion that the people putting TUGBoar together do > it for free and hence don't have to do a good job, I personally would > prefer that they be paid and do a better job. (We do pay for the > fruits of their labor.) > Dimitri Vulis Don pointed out that if you want it to be done better it is in your power to change it. If you want more articles about free copies of TeX then write them. Not every will want the subscription cost increased. But nobody will complain if you volunteer your services to fix the problems you perceive. If you don't like it, don't complain. Fix it! BTW: I have not yet gotten around to joining TUG. I intend to. Your ravings have not discouraged me. -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer. "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horror
chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) (09/07/90)
In article <9009052355.AA18416@lilac.berkeley.edu> DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes: >OK, I'll byte. :) Here's a constructive suggestion: print a directory >of known free and low-cost TeX's for all systems (not just MS-DOS) in >every issue of TUGBoat. This would take a good deal of space, but might be worthwhile. (Note that the amount of space goes up almost exponentially with the usefulness of the list: a simple list of `these exist' is very short, a list of `these exist and here is how you get them' is fairly long, and a list of `these exist, are known to work with these systems, have been rated as good/bad/ugly by {list of people}; here is how you get them' is very long and takes a great deal of effort to maintain. More to the point, however, is the fact that TUG cannot print an article that no one will write! If *you* want it printed, *you* write it ... that is the rule in this domain. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
tmb@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (09/07/90)
[dlv writes:] >Here are some ways in which these TeX sellers hurt our community: >* they prevent the spread of TeX. People who've spent $2,000 on software >are less likely to give free copies to others. If they spent $2000 on TeX, they probably bought a proprietary version and would not even legally be permitted to re-distribute it. >* they prevent programmers from releasing the results of their work into the >public domain. People are reluctant to make their programs publicly >available for fear that someone will start selling them; or at least they >distribute them without the source code. Commercial vendors of TeX perform a useful function. I would guess that Knuth, just like MIT (for X windows), and AT&T (for SML of NJ) made a conscious decision to release their (excellent) software such that it may be re-sold for profit. All these institutions/persons could have distributed their software under a copyleft, if they had wanted to, but must have considered that alternative less useful. By allowing vendors to re-sell proprietary versions of free software like TeX, SML, and X windows, you encourage ports to a much larger variety of machines and operating systems. You also encourage advertising and marketing, and commercial versions come with support, are often easier to install and set up, and they don't require downloading. I had considered buying a commercial version of TeX for my Amiga (before I sold the Amiga), because it was simply the least effort way of getting TeX up and running. >* they rip off those ignorant of the existence of better alternatives. >People buy their TeX's instead of spending their computer budget on >something they really need. (Note that buyers of commercial TeXs are >ignorant / not too bright through no fault of theirs.) There is no rip off here. Information is a commodity that costs money just as goods. If you don't invest in the information about where you can get something for free, you have to pay for that something. There is nothing wrong with that. These people could hire consultants who would tell them about the PD versions, but probably the total cost to them would be just as high as if they bought the commercial version, and, in the latter case, they get support. If all of this bothers you so much, perhaps you are willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars advertising the availability of a free version of TeX for the Mac or MS-DOS out of your own pocket. I think altogether the TeX community has benefited from the availability of commercial, proprietary versions of TeX. Most computer users (PC or Mac) wouldn't even have heard of TeX if companies hadn't advertised their proprietary versions in magazines and journals.