Technology and Trends  USENET Archives

 Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com! uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ddsw1!mikey.pr.mcs.net!mikey From: mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: So... WHY Linux??? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 19:22:04 Organization: Fen Software, Inc. Lines: 44 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] This is not a flame. Why Linux instead of NT, or something else? I spent the better part of last week -- more than 40 hours I'm certain -- trying to get Linux configured. Things are coming along; I now have X, sound, some nifty dev tools, DOOM, and ... hmm, I think that's all. Until I get PPP configured, I still go into windows to get my mail, read the news, blah, blah, blah. My LJ4 still isn't configured yet, but that's only a matter of time and reading. I'm slowly coming to the realization that I can tinker around with Linux, but I need to get into Windows to get anything useful done. Why is this? Last night, I installed NT 3.5 workstation in less than 20 minutes. It updated my old version without the slightest hitch or hiccup. Five minutes later, RAS is configured to dial into my PPP internet account, and I'm up and running. All my old familiar tools are here, and I everything works with each other. (And I didn't have to make the kernel even once. Config changes? It's got a gui.) So, I ask myself, what on earth do I want to do with Linux? It's a technical marvel, no doubt about that, but what am I going to do with it? When it's all tuned and configured, then what? Will I then be the envy of my peers? Probably not. I could take it, slap it onto my wife's old 486-25, put that in a closet, and have a super cool comm and printer server. Why, I could even set it up as a super, super slow node hanging off my provider's net. Maybe put some cool servers on it, set up an ftp area for some obscure hobby. The possibilities are endless... How about this: I'll learn to program X, and give up my consulting practice with ms windows. --------- Why are you tinkering with Linux? Are you getting anything useful done? Aside from tons and tons of really really cool FREE software that runs well on really old hardware, what is there on Linux that I can't do as well in, say, NT? Again, this ain't no flame, but my skins pretty thick and I can take the heat. Why Linux? Mike.  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu! news.tc.cornell.edu!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Message-ID: <1994Oct19.172424.26062@cs.cornell.edu> Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850 References: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 17:24:24 GMT Lines: 52 In article mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) writes: >This is not a flame. > >Why Linux instead of NT, or something else? I spent the better part of last >week -- more than 40 hours I'm certain -- trying to get Linux configured. >Things are coming along; I now have X, sound, some nifty dev tools, DOOM, and >... hmm, I think that's all. Until I get PPP configured, I still go into >windows to get my mail, read the news, blah, blah, blah. My LJ4 still isn't >configured yet, but that's only a matter of time and reading. > >I'm slowly coming to the realization that I can tinker around with Linux, but >I need to get into Windows to get anything useful done. Why is this? Last >night, I installed NT 3.5 workstation in less than 20 minutes. It updated my >old version without the slightest hitch or hiccup. Five minutes later, RAS is >configured to dial into my PPP internet account, and I'm up and running. All >my old familiar tools are here, and I everything works with each other. (And I >didn't have to make the kernel even once. Config changes? It's got a gui.) Obviously you'd rather the use the system than hack on it. If that's the case, then by all means use Windows NT or something else. Linux is here for those of us who want the power and flexibility of a complete, free UNIX system, and who like to do the hacking required to set it up and use it. It's like owning and maintaining a motorcycle. Why bother with a motorcycle, when a family sedan is much more comfortable, roomier, and easier to drive? Sure, you can't take it on dirt roads, and it's not much fun to floor on a desert highway, but it requires very little upkeep on your part and it's easy to find trained professionals to service it should something go wrong. People who ride and maintain motorcycles, however, usually do it as a hobby, and they like the openness and feeling of speed. Sure, it requires a bit more work, and it's more dangerous, but it's also less expensive in the long run and a lot more fun. Linux is very much a motorcycle in that sense, and NT a family sedan. Take your pick. I get a much better sense of accomplishment from, say, upgrading from X11R5 to X11R6 by hand, rather than from flipping diskettes and letting Microsoft do all of the work. I really appreciate my X server, because not only is it free, but I had to do some dirty work to get it configured correctly. If you'd rather take a back seat to systems administration, and if you don't mind shelling out the big bucks to "upgrade", and don't mind not having the ability to modify any part of the system yourself, much less have the source code, go right ahead and use NT. In my opinion all of the above benfits far outweigh any actual work that you might have to do to get Linux running. mdw Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet! library.erc.clarkson.edu!vanpatjm From: vanp...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Jason Van Patten) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 19 Oct 1994 20:43:34 GMT Organization: Clarkson University Lines: 100 Message-ID: <3840dm$gui@library.erc.clarkson.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: craft.fddi.clarkson.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Mike Young (mi...@mcs.com) wrote: : This is not a flame. Neither's this... honest. : Why Linux instead of NT, or something else? I spent the better part of last : week -- more than 40 hours I'm certain -- trying to get Linux configured. Sorry to hear that it took you so long. Took me less than 3 in one night, if I remember correctly. CD-ROMs are wonderful toys.. : windows to get my mail, read the news, blah, blah, blah. My LJ4 still isn't : configured yet, but that's only a matter of time and reading. Same with anything on Linux. There's plenty o' stuff to read, and there's probably already an answer in the FAQs/HOW-TOs for any sort of question you may have, except this one.. I think. : I'm slowly coming to the realization that I can tinker around with Linux, but This realization should not have taken that long. The reason that the source is provided to you is so that you CAN tinker, and change if need be. Dig through the kernel source some day, you may learn some interesting things. This is one reason I personally use Linux. I love learning new things, especially technical things. Linux provides me with not only a working, robust, and stable op.sys., but also a platform in which (Note, not only ON which) I can disect. : I need to get into Windows to get anything useful done. Why is this? Last ^^^^^^^ Well, I use another operating system when I need to 'get something usefull done', OS/2. Why haven't I yet deleted OS/2 from my disk? Well, there aren't any programs for word processing/page layout/etc available on Linux. Well, let me clarify that bogus statement, not any that I care to use. The free ones are incredibly impressive. I personally don't like em. I personally will PAY for a decent word processor for Linux, so long as it's not too awfully expensive. I'm waiting for Frame. *grin* Anyhow, tangent from hell. OS/2 is there so I can easily write my papers, print them out, screw around with some multi-media toys that aren't yet available on Linux (I'd actually pay for these too..), or maybe just have a _stable_ DOS platform. : How about this: I'll learn to program X, and give up my consulting : practice with ms windows. Now THAT's a hell of an idea. : Why are you tinkering with Linux? Are you getting anything useful done? Aside : from tons and tons of really really cool FREE software that runs well on : really old hardware, what is there on Linux that I can't do as well in, say, : NT? I have very little experience with NT. My one experience with it scared me away from it. *grin* I don't know what NT's capable of doing, so I can't comment on it. Here's a small summary of why I love and use Linux: A. True Multi-tasking environment. Well, that's gettin kinda common these days ain't it? B. It's unix. Really. It is. I had, prior to my college career, never even heard of unix. I was drawn to it almost instantly because it's technically superior to any operating system I had used previously. Now I can have a cheap (free) one on my PC. Bonus indeed! C. X-Windows!! That was one thing that really pulled me to Unix. Micro[Insert Favorite S-Word Here] WinBlows could never even dream of doing windows like X can. (I'm comparing using Win3.1) In my opinion, and lots others I'm sure, X is just plain awesome. D. (Goes with B sorta) Networking. Need I say more? E. (Mentioned this earlier) Learning platform. I can tinker, toy, play around with the kernel and learn tons and tons each time. It is indeed a hacker's dream come true. . . . [almost done, honest] I use OS/2 so I can work. I actually DO use DOS so I can play my games. But that is the ONLY reason I use DOS. There it is. As much as I can think of now anyhow. Come on fellow Linux'ers, let Mike here have even better reasons for Linux than mine. I know you can do it.. Jason -- Jason Van Patten | If at first you don't succeed, keep | Clarkson University | on sucking till you do succeed. | vanp...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu | - Curly Howard | | (The Three Stooges) | ** Any opinions expressed here are actually yours, you just don't know it, yet. **   Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu! news.kei.com!ddsw1!mikey.pr.mcs.net!mikey From: mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 21:51:19 Organization: Fen Software, Inc. Lines: 16 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <383d5s$n8v@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] In article <383d5s$n...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kha...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Hamer) writes: >From: kha...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Hamer) >Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? >Date: 19 Oct 1994 15:15:08 GMT >Speaking only for myself, I cannot imagine what NT or "Chicago" or whatever >could offer me. I do _all_ my papers in LaTeX (although when our research group >buys frame I may get the Linux version). You'll have to help me with this one. I'm maybe halfway through responses here and in email, and half of them mention latex as in context as an equalizer to gui word processors. I considered the lack of graphical feedback -- vis a vis latex -- a definite minus. Why would I want to be blindly embed formatting codes? Mike. Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com! news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!mikey.pr.mcs.net!mikey From: mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 22:24:39 Organization: Fen Software, Inc. Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <3840dm$gui@library.erc.clarkson.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] In article <3840dm$g...@library.erc.clarkson.edu> vanp...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Jason Van Patten) writes: >From: vanp...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Jason Van Patten) >Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? >Date: 19 Oct 1994 20:43:34 GMT >Mike Young (mi...@mcs.com) wrote: >: This is not a flame. > Neither's this... honest. It's not a flame, honest, but I've got to ask this one, as it's been bothering me, along with the latex vs word some others harped on. >C. X-Windows!! That was one thing that really pulled me to Unix. > Micro[Insert Favorite S-Word Here] WinBlows could never even dream of > doing windows like X can. (I'm comparing using Win3.1) In my > opinion, and lots others I'm sure, X is just plain awesome. I got Linux partly -- mostly but not only -- for X, and I wouldn't have considered it without it. With that out of the way... Help me out on this one. What don't I see that must be painfully obvious to you? Surely, it can't be that great an advantage to not have a standard gui. There is one thing that X can do that Windows probably never will, and that's running a graphical app from a remote station. Aside from that, I don't see a big or obvious difference. Mike. Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com! hookup!news.kei.com!ddsw1!mikey.pr.mcs.net!mikey From: mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:10:22 Organization: Fen Software, Inc. Lines: 63 Message-ID: References: <1994Oct19.172424.26062@cs.cornell.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] In article <1994Oct19.1...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes: >From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) >Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 17:24:24 GMT >Obviously you'd rather the use the system than hack on it. If that's >the case, then by all means use Windows NT or something else. Linux is >here for those of us who want the power and flexibility of a complete, >free UNIX system, and who like to do the hacking required to set it up and >use it. >It's like owning and maintaining a motorcycle. Why bother with a motorcycle, >when a family sedan is much more comfortable, roomier, and easier to drive? >Sure, you can't take it on dirt roads, and it's not much fun to floor on a >desert highway, but it requires very little upkeep on your part and it's >easy to find trained professionals to service it should something go wrong. >People who ride and maintain motorcycles, however, usually do it as >a hobby, and they like the openness and feeling of speed. Sure, it requires >a bit more work, and it's more dangerous, but it's also less expensive in >the long run and a lot more fun. I agree with most of that. The cost part, though, I'm not so sure about. The following isn't exactly germane, but I'd better qualify that last statement. NT cost me$50 about 2 years ago when it first hit public beta. I pay $500 a year for microsoft's developers' network subscription. (I can hear you gagging already.) What I get for that is quarterly updates on their developmentkits, OS's, and publications. The October update came last week, and contained 11 CD's. Eleven CD's hold a lot of information, and its always there if I ever need it. In other words, I think I get my money's worth. You could consider this roughly the equivalent of having source. I might read the source (definitely will, come to think of it) if it were freely available, but not if something more fun or urgent was beckoning. I think this is also true of most of you with the system that comes with source. --------- But I'm here asking about Linux, not to sell you on windows. I have a need that I think Linux could fill, but there are other more cost effective solutions. There are also some things that Linux (or any Unix) can do that NT won't. The problems I had in setting up were with X, sound, audio CD, and local printing. I made some newbie booboo's, but in the end, not real harm was done and things got cured with "just" another kernel build. These toys really don't matter one whit to me, because I have it bigger, better and bolder elsewhere. The only real use I can find for this (Linux) is as a gateway machine. I want to use it to route local traffic here to my internet provider. So the nice little toys -- sound, X, cd audio -- aren't that important. It'd be nice to have it act as a print server as well, but even WFW does pretty well at that. The conflict is that I hate the thought of dedicating a machine to do this. I'd like to be able to turn to my other shareholder (wife), and say "Look at this! We can now do blah blah blah." I think we all agree there's nothing here that seriously challenges desktop apps (for the common person) in Windows. I'm still asking, but I think I got the answer already. I'll use Linux for what I bought it for: to play with if and when I have time. Mike. Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech! newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com! travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Message-ID: <1994Oct20.143125.26581@cs.cornell.edu> Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850 References: <1994Oct19.172424.26062@cs.cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 14:31:25 GMT Lines: 36 In article mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) writes: > >I agree with most of that. The cost part, though, I'm not so sure about. >The following isn't exactly germane, but I'd better qualify that last >statement. NT cost me$50 about 2 years ago when it first hit public beta. I >pay $500 a year for microsoft's developers' network subscription. (I can hear >you gagging already.) What I get for that is quarterly updates on their >developmentkits, OS's, and publications. The October update came last week, >and contained 11 CD's. Eleven CD's hold a lot of information, and its always >there if I ever need it. In other words, I think I get my money's worth. Perhaps$500 is reasonable for that much information, but I have a Linux Developers' Resource 2-CD set that runs me 20 bucks and is updated every two months. It's got the actual source code for everything, instead of megabytes upon megabytes of "technical information" to act as a proxy for source. In a way, if you could get the sources for NT, you wouldn't need all of that. We all have different computing needs. I use my Linux system primarily for programming and hacking, as well as for writing books and other fun, relaxing activities. I know that I couldn't get the hack value that I need out of NT or any other commercial OS without source. Under Linux, I have a complete development environment, with a free C/C++ compiler, libraries, and access to the sources for everything should I need to hack them. Linux just fits the bill; obviously, in your case, others things do that more suitably. I'm glad that you see that Linux has its merits, and of course NT and others have their merits. There's no One True Operating System. I use Linux because I want to hack and I am much more flexible within UNIX than in any other environment. (There's nothing quite like patching executables from the command line using sed.) mdw Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu! eehpx12!jr7877 From: jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 20 Oct 1994 03:39:20 GMT Organization: UIUC Engineering Workstation Labs Lines: 33 Distribution: world Message-ID: <384op8$qg0@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> References: <383d5s$n8v@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: eehpx12.cen.uiuc.edu In article mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) writes: >In article <383d5s$n...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kha...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu >(Kenneth Hamer) writes: >>From: kha...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Hamer) >>Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? >>Date: 19 Oct 1994 15:15:08 GMT > >>Speaking only for myself, I cannot imagine what NT or "Chicago" or whatever >>could offer me. I do _all_ my papers in LaTeX (although when our research group >>buys frame I may get the Linux version). > >You'll have to help me with this one. I'm maybe halfway through responses here >and in email, and half of them mention latex as in context as an equalizer >to gui word processors. I considered the lack of graphical feedback -- vis a >vis latex -- a definite minus. Why would I want to be blindly embed formatting >codes? > Yeah, I tend to agree. Your staunch anti-Dos anti-Windows Unix user tends to dismiss Word Processors (real word processors, anyway). I hate to tell them, but I could type up a professional looking paper under Word for Windows 6 probably in half the time they could in Latex, even if they are an EXPERT. (And I'm definitely no expert...). On this line.. Is there a version of Wordperfect for X? I have used the NeXT version and it is really nice (well, for a non-Windows processor). I use Linux and love it, but if you need a really good Word Processor you're going to have to keep Windows. (Or wait for WINE!). -- "The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular." - F. D. jrob...@uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Message-ID: Sender: ne...@info.swan.ac.uk Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology References: <383d5s$n8v@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <384op8$qg0@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 15:16:13 GMT Lines: 22 In article <384op8$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> jr7877@eehpx12 (Jason V Robertson) writes: >but I could type up a professional looking paper under Word for Windows 6 >probably in half the time they could in Latex, even if they are an EXPERT. >(And I'm definitely no expert...). I'd doubt faster. With expertise you can really knock stuff out fast with LaTex. For example its trivial to fire off database queries for references and have them pasted in from emacs while not so easy with W4W6. I've not gone deep enough into W4W6 (I have better things to do) but it looks like a lot of invested time could get you some of these kinds of facilities. >On this line.. Is there a version of Wordperfect for X? I have used the >NeXT version and it is really nice (well, for a non-Windows processor). Yes there is WP/X, yes if you load the iBCS2 module into Linux you can run SCO WP/X - look at ftp://tsx.11.mit.edu/pub/Linux/ALPHA/ibcs. Alan -- ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,, // Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU // ----------'----------------------------'----------------------------'' Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Message-ID: Sender: ne...@info.swan.ac.uk Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology References: Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 15:26:20 GMT Lines: 33 In article mi...@mcs.com (Mike Young) writes: >I'm slowly coming to the realization that I can tinker around with Linux, but >I need to get into Windows to get anything useful done. Why is this? Last Because you haven't got the relevant software installed I guess. Apart from setting up PPP and SLIP I can do a Linux install from slackware in about 20 minutes a shot. Windows normally takes me much longer. >night, I installed NT 3.5 workstation in less than 20 minutes. It updated my But when you installed NT did you also install all the compilers, utilties tools etc.. see in fact you installed a lot less. >Why are you tinkering with Linux? Are you getting anything useful done? Aside >from tons and tons of really really cool FREE software that runs well on >really old hardware, what is there on Linux that I can't do as well in, say, >NT? 4-5 users logged into a remote machine running programs. Free tools, and powerful tools too like MIPS cross development. A set of workstations hanging off a Linux box which is serving them as Lan manager clients with no extra license costs. Large scale electronic mail handling (1200 messages/week+). Reading MAC disks, running DOS programs. This is a real commercial system doing real commercial jobs. Oh and its an 8MB 386DX40 Equally most word processing, some programming and a lot of other odd jobs are done on DOS/Windows systems. Different jobs different machines. Alan -- ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,, // Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU // ----------'----------------------------'----------------------------''   Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ddsw1! boatman.fensoft.com!mikey From: mikey@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Michael H. Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 25 Oct 1994 02:08:50 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Lines: 33 Message-ID: <38hpbj$na0@News1.mcs.com> References: <384op8$qg0@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Anton de Wet (a...@Chopin.rau.ac.za) wrote: : : Yeah, but you don't get immediate feedback. I think it's nice to be able : : to look at the screen an see what's bold and what's italic without : : filtering special codes from the rest of the text. : Sure, but on a large document you could change {\em all} the secondary : headings into italic, see what it looks like, change your mind and change it : back --- by just changing a command in one place. While this might be possible : in some word processors, it is not the way most people use them. This is the : way TeX/LaTeX functions naturally. : By sacrificing immediate feedback, you gain global control. And (to bring it : back to topic) is similar to the difference in spirit between *nix and DOS : based systems. ------------ I'll kick the dead horse one last time... Word 6 has that, too, in the form of character styles. I'm not suggesting you change your platform just to have it; just pointing out there is no real advantage to LaTeX (to me, that is). If I needed proof that vi has it right, all I have to do is count the number of times I delete extraneous jjjj's in some documents. : It is a rare DOS user that has all his/her original work : separated from all the applications. (A very good idea for effective backups) : It's easy to do but doesn't come naturally to the system. -------- You lost me on this one. Huh? Mike. ****************** ** email responses to mi...@mcs.com. I got PPP working, but haven't solved ** the domain name stuff with my provider yet. Sorry. ************ Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu! qualcomm.com!eldritch!ianm From: ia...@qualcomm.com (Ian McCloghrie) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 25 Oct 1994 09:59:31 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <384op8$qg0@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> <38hpbj$na0@News1.mcs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eldritch.qualcomm.com mikey@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Michael H. Young) writes: >: It is a rare DOS user that has all his/her original work >: separated from all the applications. (A very good idea for effective backups) >: It's easy to do but doesn't come naturally to the system. >-------- >You lost me on this one. Huh? The way most DOS/Windows applications work, the default directory in which to place files created by the application is the same directory in which the application resides or, perhaps, a subdirectory of that directory. ie, if Word for Windows lives in 'c:\winword', the the .doc files that you create with it most likely end up being 'c:\winword\foo.doc'. To me, it is far more useful to store files by content, rather than by format, so I'd rather hvae a 'c:\docs\project1' which will have all the documents that have to do with project1, be they winword .doc files, excel spreadsheets, or borland .cpp files. (and this behaviour isn't limited to DOS machines either, Macs also default to doing it this way. What's more, since there's no concept of a global "current working directory", every time you load a given mac ap you have to change the directory in order to get to the right place to save your file) -- Ian McCloghrie work: ia...@qualcomm.com home: i...@egbt.org ____ GCS d-- H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v- C++$UL++++ US++$ P+>++ \bi/ L+++ 3 E+ N++ K--- W--- M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t+ 5+++ jx R G''' \/ tv- b+++ D- B-- e- u* h- f+ r n- y* The above represents my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my employer, Qualcomm Inc.   Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com! news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.et.byu.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov! sec396-news.jpl.nasa.gov!news From: Gerald....@jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Snyder) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Why TeX? (was Re: So... WHY Linux???) Date: 25 Oct 1994 15:08:29 GMT Organization: JPL, NASA Lines: 24 Message-ID: <38j71d$be0@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> References: <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> <38guj0$56f@agate.b <1994Oct25.030037.25653@escape.widomaker.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.149.100.22 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.2 In article <1994Oct25.0...@escape.widomaker.com>, shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) says: > >.... > >No word processor for Windows (or any other PC I've seen) can produce a >typographically correct document like TeX/LaTeX do. Most WP's output is >pretty horrible compared to TeX. > In what way? (This is a request for information, not a challenge.) Do you mean character spacing within and between words? Are other things involved? Is it the sort of thing which is obvious even to people who only recently stepped up from lousy dot matrix printers to laser printers? Are some WYSIWYG word processors better than others? >-- >csh >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >shen...@escape.widomaker.com | Linux... that's it for the moment >-----------------------------------+ Gerry Snyder Gerald....@jpl.nasa.gov  Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech! newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com! zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!convex!bcm!pendragon!smithj.jsc.nasa.gov!smithj From: smi...@smithj.jsc.nasa.gov (James Conrad Pope Smith) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Why TeX? (was Re: So... WHY Linux???) Date: 25 Oct 1994 17:23:59 GMT Organization: String to put in the Organization Header Lines: 32 Message-ID: <38jevf$rld@pendragon.jsc.nasa.gov> References: <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> <38guj0$56f@agate.b <1994Oct25.030037.25653@escape.widomaker.com> <38j71d$be0@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: smithj.jsc.nasa.gov X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Gerry Snyder (Gerald....@jpl.nasa.gov) wrote: : In article <1994Oct25.0...@escape.widomaker.com>, : shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) says: : > : >No word processor for Windows (or any other PC I've seen) can produce a : >typographically correct document like TeX/LaTeX do. Most WP's output is : >pretty horrible compared to TeX. : > : In what way? (This is a request for information, not a challenge.) Do you : mean character spacing within and between words? Are other things : involved? : Is it the sort of thing which is obvious even to people who only recently : stepped up from lousy dot matrix printers to laser printers? Are some : WYSIWYG word processors better than others? I can pick up any set of conference proceedings and be pretty sure whether the paper was TeX or not. Don't know about some codes, but programs like Wordperfect and Word produce chincy output. The fonts are terrible, the math functions look amateurish, etc. I guess TeX's fonts are just the right size - not too thick. James -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- James P. Smith Engineer/Collector (older non-sports, Jack Kemp, 1969 Topps BB) NASA/JSC, Mail Code ES Houston, Texas 77058 smi...@smithj.jsc.nasa.gov jsm...@owlnet.rice.edu smi...@smd4.jsc.nasa.gov Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com! uhog.mit.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester! cornell!mdw From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) Subject: Re: Why TeX? (was Re: So... WHY Linux???) Message-ID: <1994Oct25.210850.3349@cs.cornell.edu> Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850 References: <1994Oct25.030037.25653@escape.widomaker.com> <38j71d$be0@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> <38jevf$rld@pendragon.jsc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 21:08:50 GMT Lines: 56 In article <38jevf$r...@pendragon.jsc.nasa.gov> smi...@smithj.jsc.nasa.gov (James Conrad Pope Smith) writes: > >I can pick up any set of conference proceedings and be pretty sure whether >the paper was TeX or not. Don't know about some codes, but programs like >Wordperfect and Word produce chincy output. The fonts are terrible, the >math functions look amateurish, etc. I guess TeX's fonts are just the right >size - not too thick. I'd like to throw in some good words for TeX and friends, although they don't belong in this newsgroup. First of all, have you ever tried to write a longish (several hundred pages) book or thesis in WordPerfect? The Linux Documentation Project manuals are all written in LaTeX and formatted on Linux machines. Most publishers use our Linux-prodcued manuals directly (some reformat themselves, on Linux machines, using LaTeX). I have never seen a professional book formatted under a PC word processor. Some say that TeX has a certain "look". The Computer Modern fonts and certain page layouts are the default for LaTeX, but they can be changed freely. O'Reilly's "Making TeX Work" was produced entirely within TeX, using a different set of fonts and page layot conventions. Don't be fooled into thinking that TeX documents are restrained to a particular look and feel. Also, I can design my own typefaces, logos, and dingbats within METAFONT directly for inclusion in TeX documents. METAFONT is extremely powerful and is a great way to extend TeX. Also, because TeX is based on a particular source format, I can produce TeX "code" from other text formats easily. The Linux HOWTOs are formatted using the Linuxdoc-SGML package, which prodcues LaTeX, HTML, and nroff source from an SGML-based source maintained by the author. I don't think that this would be nearly as straightforward when dealing with random word processor formats, although RTF might fit the bill. TeX gives me nearly complete control over the placement and layout of text, figures, etc. in my document. If I needed to squeeze two characters in a formula together, or shift a figure over a few ticks to the right, I don't know how I would do this within a "word processor". This kind of fine control is very important when formatting complicated texts, or resumes, or anything else which depends heavily on spacing and layot. That being said it would be nice to get rid of the TeX-vs-word processing religious wars in c.o.l.misc. They don't belong here, and I don't want to inflict them upon comp.text.tex, either. It seems that this discussion comes up every few weeks in this group, because it is a clear cut example of the UNIX workstation vs. personal computing mindset; the former instilled by UNIX and other systems, the latter by Microsoft and Apple's vision of what personal computing should be. I, for one, don't give a flip what Microsoft thinks I should be doing with my personal computer. mdw Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com! news.mathworks.com!panix!ddsw1!boatman.fensoft.com!mikey From: mikey@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Michael H. Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 27 Oct 1994 07:00:30 GMT Organization: I need to put my ORGANIZATION here. Lines: 74 Message-ID: <38nj6f$18p@News1.mcs.com> References: <384op8$qg0@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> <38hpbj$na0@News1.mcs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Ian McCloghrie (ia...@qualcomm.com) wrote: : mikey@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Michael H. Young) writes: : >: It is a rare DOS user that has all his/her original work : >: separated from all the applications. (A very good idea for effective backups) : >: It's easy to do but doesn't come naturally to the system. : >-------- : >You lost me on this one. Huh? : The way most DOS/Windows applications work, the default directory in : which to place files created by the application is the same directory : in which the application resides or, perhaps, a subdirectory of : that directory. ie, if Word for Windows lives in 'c:\winword', : the the .doc files that you create with it most likely end up : being 'c:\winword\foo.doc'. To me, it is far more useful to : store files by content, rather than by format, so I'd rather : hvae a 'c:\docs\project1' which will have all the documents that : have to do with project1, be they winword .doc files, excel : spreadsheets, or borland .cpp files. : (and this behaviour isn't limited to DOS machines either, Macs : also default to doing it this way. What's more, since there's : no concept of a global "current working directory", every time : you load a given mac ap you have to change the directory in : order to get to the right place to save your file) --------- (The horse that won't die...) Again, Ian, there's nothing about the os -- ehh, environment -- that dictates this. Maybe in un*x, the developers were more conscious of directory structure, and allowed a setting in the .xxxrc file. The analogous info file in windows is in a *.ini files. Typically, most app's (including word) include a gui interface to manipulate that. We're not even talking about a technical difference here. The technology gap, it seems, is the ease of programming in X vs Windows. Dialogs are easy in Windows. OTOH, vi is just so cool, why bother with a slick interface that will cost much pain and time to developers. (Obvious flame bait? :) In the original thread that started all this, I got three different types of responses: "Linux is a cool, cheap workstation clone"; "Linux is a neat toy I like to bash and learn on"; "DOS/Windows is cruddy, and you can't convince me otherwise." I understand that you're all attached to your tools; I know I am to mine. Coming from a DOS/Windows background, I have a different perspective. Things work in Windows. This, of course, is due to hard work by someone else faraway, and I can't take pride in it. Conversely, things don't work in Unix. Instead of mucking around learning and programming X as I intended, I'm learning Perl so I can modify a script that prints listings 2up; messing with ghostscript so I can work with my (non-ps) laserjet 4; wondering how in h*ll I can make doom not sound like a stuck pig; researching device drivers so I can use my Wacom tablet as the X pointing device; continuously checking the bytes/sec I get through PPP because xmosaic, ftp, and news are so SLOOOOOW; wondering why I need to be root to change a cd; confounded that g++ wants to tell me that 'try' and 'catch' are reserved words, instead of simply compiling the damn thing. I didn't boot Linux yesterday, but instead used my old, barely adequate, Windows apps yesterday. It was like coming home from a long road trip, back from the hotels where the linens were fresh, but the clean bathrooms were never ever laid out the way I would have my own. In other words, I have Linux working, almost tuned even. It's now time, I think to return to the real world, and get back to what I do. BTW, did I mention that, last night, my fax board worked again for the first time in weeks? Ciao, and thanks for the entertaining perspectives. Mike. Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de! news.belwue.de!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!ayrton.eideti.com! ayrton.eideti.com!not-for-mail From: dre...@ayrton.eideti.com (Andrew Veliath) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Why TeX? (was Re: So... WHY Linux???) Date: 29 Oct 1994 18:31:56 -0400 Organization: eideti.com Systems Corp. Lines: 29 Message-ID: <38uigs$86v@ayrton.eideti.com> References: <3854t3$on7@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <385cjr$bqj@agate.berkeley.edu> <38gn81$56e@rauteg.rau.ac.za> <38guj0$56f@agate.b <1994Oct25.030037.25653@escape.widomaker.com> <38j71d$be0@lo-fan.jpl.nasa.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: ayrton.eideti.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Gerry Snyder (Gerald....@jpl.nasa.gov) wrote: : >No word processor for Windows (or any other PC I've seen) can produce a : >typographically correct document like TeX/LaTeX do. Most WP's output is : >pretty horrible compared to TeX. : > : In what way? (This is a request for information, not a challenge.) Do you : mean character spacing within and between words? Are other things : involved? Output from TeX is like reading a professional manual, complete with ligatures and other typesetting elements.. ligatures are pretty cool and make the doc look quite nice, one of the examples given is how fi will remove the dot on the 'i' and connect the horizontal line from the f. : Is it the sort of thing which is obvious even to people who only recently : stepped up from lousy dot matrix printers to laser printers? Are some : WYSIWYG word processors better than others? Probably not, but if you are running linux it isn't to hard to get a printout to check it out (if you haven't used TeX before this might be an overstatement ;-)). Also, I use AmiPro on the dos side for my equations all the time, and although it's easier to use, TeX equations are more accurate and much better looking. Drew Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newsfeed.ACO.net! news.iif.hu!goliat.eik.bme.hu!R2.sch.bme.hu!mingo From: mingo@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Molnar Ingo) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 11 Nov 1994 10:58:11 GMT Organization: Technical University of Budapest Lines: 33 Message-ID: <39vio3$gtt@goliat.eik.bme.hu> References: <3840dm$gui@library.erc.clarkson.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: r2.sch.bme.hu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Mike Young (mi...@mcs.com) wrote: : Help me out on this one. What don't I see that must be painfully obvious to : you? Surely, it can't be that great an advantage to not have a standard gui. : There is one thing that X can do that Windows probably never will, and that's : running a graphical app from a remote station. Aside from that, I don't see a : big or obvious difference. MS-Windows and Microsoft Word for Windows 6.0 is the best (now) if: A. you want to write *short* business letters quickly B. you want to integrate text, pictures, graphs etc. C. you want to integrate with other Windows apps like Excell, Draw, etc. *but* if you want to do large documents like thesis works, publications, etc. let's say larger than 10 pages, you *have to* go into , which is nothing else as ASCII input. No italics, no formatting. Formatting is done if everything else is finished; you tune your styles, check for missprints, you switch from into for a couple of times. Large documents were almost impossible under Word 2.0, are possible under 6.0 now, but notice: this is nothing else but LaTeX under Windows! Please dear LaTeXers, notice argument B. Integrating pictures, graphs, tables, vector-images is *pure* 2D stuff! It could be done in ASCII (=hierarchical 1D structures), but it is really 2D. I use Word and like wysiwyg, but there are limitations. I use LaTeX and like ASCII input, but there are limitations. -- -------------------------- | MIngo (-: Ingo Molnar | | mi...@hercules.elte.hu | -------------------------- Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net! redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.com!mikey From: mi...@boatman.mikey.pr.mcs.net (Michael H. Young) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: So... WHY Linux??? Date: 13 Nov 1994 08:41:45 GMT Organization: MCSNet Services Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <3840dm$gui@library.erc.clarkson.edu> <39vio3$gtt@goliat.eik.bme.hu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mikey.pr.mcs.net In-reply-to: mingo@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE's message of 11 Nov 1994 10:58:11 GMT In article <39vio3\$g...@goliat.eik.bme.hu> mingo@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Molnar Ingo) writes: Mike Young (mi...@mcs.com) wrote: : Help me out on this one. What don't I see that must be painfully obvious to : you? Surely, it can't be that great an advantage to not have a standard gui. : There is one thing that X can do that Windows probably never will, and that's : running a graphical app from a remote station. Aside from that, I don't see a : big or obvious difference. MS-Windows and Microsoft Word for Windows 6.0 is the best (now) if: A. you want to write *short* business letters quickly B. you want to integrate text, pictures, graphs etc. C. you want to integrate with other Windows apps like Excell, Draw, etc. *but* if you want to do large documents like thesis works, publications, etc. let's say larger than 10 pages, you *have to* go into , which is nothing else as ASCII input. No italics, no formatting. Formatting is done if everything else is finished; you tune your styles, check for missprints, you switch from into for a couple of times. Large documents were almost impossible under Word 2.0, are possible under 6.0 now, but notice: this is nothing else but LaTeX under Windows! Please dear LaTeXers, notice argument B. Integrating pictures, graphs, tables, vector-images is *pure* 2D stuff! It could be done in ASCII (=hierarchical 1D structures), but it is really 2D. I use Word and like wysiwyg, but there are limitations. I use LaTeX and like ASCII input, but there are limitations. ------------ I was just noticing how similar TeX is to RTF (Word's compatibility file format). In fact, I toyed with the idea of writing exactly that: an rtf-to-tex and back again translator. The point of this observation, though, is that TeX carries about the same information in roughly the same format as RTF. Your claim that Word's outline mode is equivalent to "LaTeX under Windows" is quite ludicrous. Typing in raw RTF is closer to TeX than anything else. (Just look at a boxed table and you'll get my drift.) Given that you didn't actually puke over that last claim, there is an advantage in writing RTF vs TeX. The DVI equivalent for rtf -- Word, of course -- is an interactive viewing and editing environment. While proofing your work, you simply click where you don't like something, and change it. The only real advantage LaTeX has over Word is its equation handling. Even that would be simpler to solve (via an OLE2 eqn applet) than it is to provide point/click editing for DVI's. I'm not advocating Word, and not slamming LaTeX. Neither one is perfect... Mike.