chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack) (05/24/91)
I've a client whose future needs coincide well with Coherent. They currently use DOS, only for word processing, and have absolutely no investment in DOS applications except for one copy of WordPerfect. This puts them in an excellent position to more-or-less painlessly ditch DOS. However, they would need to do word processing in Coherent. Coherent *includes* emacs, vi, and nroff/troff, which might actually be better for the kind of structured documents they do (just do up a macro package) but, naturally, they're reluctant to give up WordPerfect for it. So what's out there, free or commercial, in the way of touchy-feely "user friendly" word processing that will compile and run on Coherent? Is there any hope of a WordPerfect port in the coming year? btw, when is the 386/vm Coherent expected? Thanks! -- Chap Flack Their tanks will rust. Our songs will last. chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us -MIKHS 0EODWPAKHS Nothing I say represents Appropriate Roles for Technology unless I say it does.
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/25/91)
In article <9105231807.aa08466@art-sy.detroit.mi.us> chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack) writes: > This puts them in an excellent position to more-or-less painlessly > ditch DOS. However, they would need to do word processing in Coherent. > Coherent *includes* emacs, vi, and nroff/troff, which might actually be > better for the kind of structured documents they do (just do up a macro > package) but, naturally, they're reluctant to give up WordPerfect for it. Sounds like a terrific idea... giving up WordPerfect that is. :-) > So what's out there, free or commercial, in the way of touchy-feely "user > friendly" word processing that will compile and run on Coherent? Emacs. Oh, actually, that depends. Just what version of "emacs" does come with Coherent? If it has reasonable extensibility (that's what emacs is all about, after all), then just write a compatability package for emacs that mimics WP (for those users who just can't understand that learning new things is fun and good mental excercise!). BTW, what drivers does the troff come with? C/A/T? If so, has anyone ported Chris Lewis' PSROFF to Coherent yet? PSROFF 2.0 should fit just nicely (39+24+5 Kb is the size of troff2ps on 386/ix, though I'm not sure how much malloc'ing it'll do -- hopefully < 40Kb!). > Is there any hope of a WordPerfect port in the coming year? Impossible.... until the 64k/64k limit is removed. The WP people write big programmes.... really big programmes! WP is no excuse for being tied down to MuSh-DOeSn't! -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (05/26/91)
In article <9105231807.aa08466@art-sy.detroit.mi.us> chap@art-sy.detroit.mi.us (j chapman flack) writes: >I've a client whose future needs coincide well with Coherent. >They currently use DOS, only for word processing, and have absolutely >no investment in DOS applications except for one copy of WordPerfect. > >This puts them in an excellent position to more-or-less painlessly >ditch DOS. However, they would need to do word processing in Coherent. >Coherent *includes* emacs, vi, and nroff/troff, which might actually be >better for the kind of structured documents they do (just do up a macro >package) but, naturally, they're reluctant to give up WordPerfect for it. > >So what's out there, free or commercial, in the way of touchy-feely "user >friendly" word processing that will compile and run on Coherent? Somewhere out there in Freeware land is a Wordstar clone for UNIX. I can't remember the name. I also saw the sources pass through the net. And of course, I didn't grab them. I'm still kicking myself. If I could find it again, I would port it, and try to get MWC to at least give it passive support. >Is there any hope of a WordPerfect port in the coming year? This would be great. >btw, when is the 386/vm Coherent expected? From what I have seen, 1992. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
loel@bluemoon.uucp (Loel Larzelere) (05/26/91)
woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes: >Sounds like a terrific idea... giving up WordPerfect that is. :-) Much as i think Cohernat may have the handle on the next phase of office Networking, giving up WP will be the last reason why people want a better network. After all, it is the de facto standard in at least the legal community, and who knows how many others. >Impossible.... until the 64k/64k limit is removed. The WP people >write big programmes.... really big programmes! Probably should be the next upgrade from Coherant .. or some third party programmer????? >WP is no excuse for being tied down to MuSh-DOeSn't! But (unfortunately) a reason for trashing a lot of perfect useable 286's for really unnecessary 386's so you can run "real" UNIX and WordPerfect. (Funny how the UNIZ version is available, isn't it?) -- Loel H. Larzelere -- Send mail to: loel@blugoose -- "The People have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to Liberty ... the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." -- Ohio Constitution, Art 1, Sec 4
Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM (05/26/91)
>WP is no excuse for being tied down to MuSh-DOeSn't!
by the way, i see a wordperfect emulation for gnu emacs was recently
posted to gnu.emacs.sources.woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May26.022359.28657@bluemoon.uucp> loel@bluemoon.uucp (Loel Larzelere) writes: > woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes: > >Sounds like a terrific idea... giving up WordPerfect that is. :-) > > Much as i think Cohernat may have the handle on the next phase > of office Networking, giving up WP will be the last reason why > people want a better network. After all, it is the de facto standard > in at least the legal community, and who knows how many others. Ah, but the point I was trying to make is that such de-facto standards are irrelelvant. Learning new tools should be a fun and desirable thing to do, and anyone worth their salt should be able to do such a switch without too much problem. The only pre-requisite is an environment were such changes, and their inevitable but temporary, reduction in productivity is encouraged. > >WP is no excuse for being tied down to MuSh-DOeSn't! > > But (unfortunately) a reason for trashing a lot of perfect > useable 286's for really unnecessary 386's so you can > run "real" UNIX and WordPerfect. (Funny how the UNIZ version > is available, isn't it?) Yes, but if you can run Coherent on your 286's, then what's the problem with using the tools available with the new environment? Assuming there are no technical impossibilities with actually using Coherent troff/nroff to generate ouput on your currently available set of output devices, then you should be able to the same jobs equally well, or even better. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP ECI and UniForum Canada +1-416-443-1734 [h] +1-416-595-5425 [w] VE3TCP Toronto, Ontario CANADA Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL
dprrhb@inetg1.ARCO.COM (Reginald H. Beardsley) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May27.163227.13727@eci386.uucp>, woods@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods) writes: > Ah, but the point I was trying to make is that such de-facto standards > are irrelelvant. Learning new tools should be a fun and desirable > thing to do, and anyone worth their salt should be able to do such a > switch without too much problem. The only pre-requisite is an > environment were such changes, and their inevitable but temporary, > reduction in productivity is encouraged. I feel obliged to take issue with the comments above. Having suffered through 4 major operating systems, about 8 minor operating systems, and 8-9 Unix variants, all in 10 years, I just might commit a criminal act if I have to go through this again!!! :-) Seriously though, a lot depends on your point of few. If you are just playing with computers, change is fun and interesting. On the other hand, if you have real work to do it is very painful. In the worst case, you become like me, a scientist trapped in the tar pit and no longer doing any science at all. -- Reginald H. Beardsley ARCO Information Services Plano, TX 75075 Phone: (214)-754-6785 Internet: dprrhb@arco.com