Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!mysore
From: mys...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Swamy Bale)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <7868@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 21 Jun 89 20:34:58 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, IN, USA
Lines: 5

Hi everybody

   Just wondering, is there any word processor utility in UNIX bsd 4.2

S.Bale.

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!tank!mimsy!chris
From: ch...@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <18218@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jun 89 03:52:25 GMT
References: <7868@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 17

In article <7...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mys...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Swamy Bale) writes:
>   Just wondering, is there any word processor utility in UNIX bsd 4.2

If you will define `word processor', we might be able to answer.

My favourite definition is:

	A food processor does to food what a word processor does to
	words.

Now, if you want to do fine typesetting, rather than slice-n-dice words,
TeX, LaTeX, and troff are all available.  4.2BSD does not come with the
first two, but they can be obtained cheaply (typically for the price of
a trip to the neighbouring University, where they already have one).
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	ch...@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pyrdc!
grebyn!macom1!larry
From: la...@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <4856@macom1.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jul 89 12:10:39 GMT
References: <7868@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Organization: CENTEL Federal Systems, Reston, VA. 22091-1506
Lines: 14

From article <7...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by mys...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Swamy Bale):
> Hi everybody
> 
>    Just wondering, is there any word processor utility in UNIX bsd 4.2
> 
> S.Bale.

Yes, its called 'vi'.

-- 
Larry Taborek	..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry	Centel Federal Systems
		la...@macom1.UUCP		11400 Commerce Park Drive
						Reston, VA 22091-1506
						703-758-7000

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!bywater!arnor!uri
From: u...@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <248@arnor.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jul 89 20:54:48 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP>
Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY
Lines: 12

From article <4...@macom1.UUCP>, by la...@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek):
> From article <7...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by mys...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Swamy Bale):
>>    Just wondering, is there any word processor utility in UNIX bsd 4.2
>> 
> Yes, its called 'vi'.
>
Great. And it has all those fancy fonts, it can format the text in 
two columns and make a lot of other things usual WP's do? Or you'll
tell that I need also troff, fonts for it (who knows where from),
special previewer and so on?

Uri.

Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!eci386!clewis
From: cle...@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <1989Jul11.192542.13711@eci386.uucp>
Date: 11 Jul 89 19:25:42 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP>
Reply-To: cle...@eci386.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 31

In article <2...@arnor.UUCP> u...@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) writes:
>From article <4...@macom1.UUCP>, by la...@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek):
>> From article <7...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, by mys...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Swamy Bale):
>>>    Just wondering, is there any word processor utility in UNIX bsd 4.2

>> Yes, its called 'vi'.

>Great. And it has all those fancy fonts, it can format the text in 
>two columns and make a lot of other things usual WP's do? Or you'll
>tell that I need also troff, fonts for it (who knows where from),
>special previewer and so on?

a) depends on what you mean by "usual WP's".  The most popular so-called 
   WP's (eg: wordstar, msword, wordperfect, etc.) don't have "fancy
   fonts".  They can lay out Courier fonts okay, but have very
   limited capabilities with proportional - especially with multiple
   point sizes.
b) BSD is bundled with nroff, troff, tbl, eqn, and various printer
   support depending on the version of BSD (versatec fonts,ditroff etc. etc.)
   And is either available or already bundled in almost every other version 
   of *nix.  What's the problem?
c) Documents are portable across many machines (try printing
   a wordperfect document on an IBM mainframe!).  And there are several
   companies with extensions.
   
Bundled with DOS you only get EDLIN. 
-- 
Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc.
UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!eci386!clewis
Phone: (416)-595-5425

Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!emory!stiatl!todd
From: t...@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <5794@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jul 89 17:25:36 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <1989Jul11.192542.13711@eci386.uucp>
Reply-To: t...@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman)
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"
Lines: 15

In article <1989Jul11.192542.13...@eci386.uucp> cle...@eci386.UUCP (Chris Lewis) 
writes:
>   WP's (eg: wordstar, msword, wordperfect, etc.) don't have "fancy
>   fonts".  They can lay out Courier fonts okay, but have very
>   limited capabilities with proportional - especially with multiple
>   point sizes.

The above statement is not true.  I am licensed with MS-Word 5.0,
and downloadable fonts are handled quite elegantly on supported
printers (such as LaserJet II, as I have).  You also have the
additional capability of viewing the layout of your document
before you print it.  Comparing MS-Word to *any* Unix word
processor is folly:  it is so superior that it is incomparable.

   ...!gatech!stiatl!todd
   Todd Merriman * 404-377-TOFU * Atlanta, GA

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
unmvax!aplcen!haven!mimsy!chris
From: ch...@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <18563@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jul 89 01:00:36 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <5794@stiatl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 11

In article <5...@stiatl.UUCP> t...@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes:
>... Comparing MS-Word to *any* Unix word
>processor is folly:  it is so superior that it is incomparable.

I have only one question: can it print the same document in draft
(proof) mode on a 300 dpi laser printer and then (assuming it looks
good) on an APS typesetter, Merganthaler, or other reasonable
first step for offset printing?
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	ch...@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!
indri!ames!attctc!jolnet!gaggy
From: ga...@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Gregory Gulik)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <1111@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Date: 15 Jul 89 05:45:05 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <1044@kuling.UUCP> 
<8161@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <330@umabco.UUCP>
Reply-To: ga...@jolnet.UUCP (Gregory Gulik)
Organization: Jolnet, Public Access Unix, Orland Park (Joliet), Ill.
Lines: 29

All this discussion about Wordperfect and [nt]roff is just fine and
dandy, but I think the original question wasn't completely answered.
And, if it was, let me rephrase it... Are there any word processors
for UNIX that are BOTH user friendly AND *cheap*?

There are two main problems with nroff and WP.

nroff:	Hard to use.  Yeah, I know, a pro can whip out a document in
	a matter of seconds.  I've heard that one a million times.
	But, let's say you would like to do something not very common,
	would you prefer to dig through your thick UNIX manuals,
	or traverse a couple menus to find what you want?

WP:	EXPENSIVE!  Yes, maybe a company CAN afford to buy it for
	every one of it's users, but there are poor UNIX people
	out in the real world.  Yes, us students dont' exactly have
	$1000+ to shell out for the program.  (Hey, the PC version
	is still pretty expensive)


But, enough said, let's return to this wonderful discussion!

-greg

-- 
Gregory A. Gulik	Phone:	(312) 825-2435
8145 Root Court		E-Mail: ...!jolnet!gaggy || ...!chinet!gag
Niles, IL 60648			|| gu...@depaul.edu || gu...@iwlcs.att.com
"Legalize Assasinations!"

Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!
bionet!apple!oliveb!pyramid!prls!gordon
From: gor...@prls.UUCP (Gordon Vickers)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Where does TeX live?
Message-ID: <23926@prls.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 89 16:11:11 GMT
References: <8638@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US> <308@arnor.UUCP> <9616@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: gor...@prls.UUCP (Gordon Vickers)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Philips Research Labs, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 248


    How to get TeX ?  I asked USENET readers this question about a year ago
 and received the following useful responce :

> From mips!ames!uw-beaver!june.cs.washington.edu!mackay Mon Nov  7 17:37:25 1988
> Received: by mips.mips.com; Mon, 7 Nov 88 17:36:27 PST
> Received: Mon, 7 Nov 88 14:27:10 PST by ames.arc.nasa.gov (5.59/1.2)
> Received: from geops.geo.washington.edu by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.12)
	> id AA13435; Mon, 7 Nov 88 04:29:44 PST
> Received: by geops.geo.WASHINGTON.EDU (5.52.1/6.7)
	> id AA28655; Mon, 7 Nov 88 04:29:21 PST
> Received: by june.cs.washington.edu (5.59/6.13+)
	> id AA09975; Sun, 6 Nov 88 23:08:16 PST
> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 88 23:08:16 PST
> From: mips!june.cs.washington.edu!mackay (Pierre MacKay)
> Return-Path: <mackay>
> Message-Id: <8811070708.AA09...@june.cs.washington.edu>
> To: prls!gordon
> In-Reply-To: Gordon Vickers's message of Thu, 27 Oct 88 15:49:48 pdt 
<8810272253.AA10...@pyramid.pyramid.com>
> Subject: request ordering info for LaTeX
> Status: R
> 
> 
The base price for a full distribution of TeX, is $140.00 for 1/2 inch
9-track tapes, $165.00 for 4-track 1/4 inch cartridge tapes.  This is
for prepaid orders, sent within the Continental U.S., by UPS, surface
routing, with delivery in eight days from dispatch.  For shipping
charges to other sites and for rush orders, see the table below.  We
can also accept purchase orders, with invoice after delivery, but
there will be an extra charge of $10.00, owing to the invoice
processing charges we incur.  We are required to have written
confirmation of orders (no phone confirmation) and we do not have fax
facilities.

Direct payment by wire can be made to
	UNIVERSITY of WASHINGTON Account # 002-138-0641
	For: Northwest Computing Support Center, # 14-0449
		in payment of UW INVOICE # -------------
        Rainier Bank -- University Branch
	1300 - NE 45th Street
        Seattle, WA 98105 U.S.A.  
Payment by wire also involves an extra charge of $10.00 to cover bank
handling charges, but you do not need to pay the $10.00 invoice charge
if we do not have to send an invoice.

TOTAL costs, including shipping charges are: 
-----    (add $10.00 for invoicing or payment by wire)

         |-------|-------|--------|--------|---------------|-----------|
         | Local | Local | Canada | Canada |   Overseas    | Overseas  |
         |  UPS  |  DHL  |  UPS*  |Airborne|Air Parcel Post|DHL Courier|
         |-------|-------|--------|--------|---------------|-----------|
 magtape |$140.00|$148.00|$140.00 |$160.00 |    $160.00    |  $170.00  |  
         |-------|-------|--------|--------|---------------|-----------|
cartridge|$165.00|$173.00|$165.00 |$185.00 |    $185.00    |  $195.00  |
         |-------|-------|--------|--------|---------------|-----------|
        *NOTE: UPS shipments to Canada only available to Province of
               Ontario and to metropolitan areas of Montreal, Vancouver
               and Victoria.

Checks should be in U.S. dollars, payable to The University of Washington,
(IRS Tax number 91-6001537) and sent to:

	The Director
	Northwest Computer Support Group,  DW-10
	University of Washington
	Seattle, Washington 98195

The normal distribution is a tar tape, blocked 20, 1600 bpi, on an
industry standard 2400 foot half-inch reel.  If you need 1/4 inch
streamer cartridges, be sure to tell us.  The 1/4 inch physical format
is QIC-11, 8000 bpi, 4-track serpentine recording.  We can send QIC-24
cartridges, but there will be a delay, since we have to make the
master off campus and send it away for copying.  QIC-24 orders may be
slightly delayed while we get a new distribution master copied.  We
cannot write nine-track on cartridges, nor can we write TK50
cartridges for the DEC Microvax.  SystemV tapes can be written in cpio
format, blocked 5120 bytes, ASCII headers, but we prefer not to, since
cpio format is extremely slow and wastes a great deal of tape on
inter-record gaps.  Again, please specify this format if you want it,
and make sure which of the several QIC formats you can read.  Most
systems can read both QIC-11 and QIC-24, but very old systems can read
only QIC-11, and some 3Bx s will only read QIC-24.

The original organization of the distribution reflected the use of
pascal for all compilations of TeX, TeXware, BibTeX, METAFONT and
MFware.  This has now been supplemented by a more convenient and more
generally portable WEB-to-C compilation for TeX, TeXware, BibTeX,
METAFONT and MFware (except for GFtoDVI, which is currently being
rewritten by Donald Knuth).  LaTeX and AMSTeX are macro packages
processed by TeX, and do not require any further compilation.

Current versions of standard programs in the distribution:

	(in the ./tex82 path)
        	TeX 	2.93 (implying the use of the new cm fonts.)
        		    (plain.tex version 2.92)
        	LaTeX 	2.09 (release of 26 April, 1988)
        		(also SliTeX 2.09)
		tangle	2.8
		weave	2.9
		dvitype	2.9
		pltotf	2.3
		tftopl	2.5
        	metafont 1.5
        	gftodvi 1.7
        	gftopk 	1.4 
        	gftype 	2.2
        	pktype 	2.2 
	        pktogf	1.0

		bibtex  0.99c
                mft 	0.3 (a formatting program for metafont source files.)
	    also:
               (chtopx gftopxl pktopx pxtoch pxtopk --- but the use of
	        these obsolescent pxl-related programs is discouraged)

Various foreign language utilities, German, Greek, Portuguese, Swedish, and a
	first run of TeX-XeT for Semitic languages.  Lots of other
	goodies of a generally similar nature.

Fonts in tfm (TeX Font Metric) format.  This is the format that describes
	fonts for TeX.  It includes all useful information about font 
	characters except what they will actually look like on paper.  
	TFM format is size independent and device independent. and can
	therefore be used on any system that runs TeX.  It will give
	you a valid DVI (DeVice Independent) output file, but will
	be of no use to give you readable hard (or CRT) copy output.

Fonts in mf source format. The full Computer Modern as released from Stanford.
	Utility fonts for character proofs etc. (not made with cmbase.mf),
	LaTeX and SliTeX fonts are also supplied in mf source format.

Fonts in PK format. This format produces characters that can actually
	be printed on paper.  It is very device-dependent, and can
	therefore only be supplied for a small range of common output
	devices.  All the standard shapes and sizes as declared in
	plain.tex, lfonts.tex, sfonts.tex and webmac.tex are here, in 118, 
	200, 240, and 300 PK(dpi) series.  The 300dpi fonts are sent out in
	write-black and write-white flavors (CanonCX and Ricoh 4080).
	No provision is made for the global magnifications of LaTeX
	style files (such as bk11.sty).  If your site needs these or
	similar magnifications you will have to run METAFONT to get them.
	The PK files for the principal LaTeX and SliTeX alphanumeric and
	symbol fonts are in a separate list.  The Euler fonts (includes  
	Fraktur) come in PK format only. (If you want [euler].mf source files,
	you should get in touch with the American Mathematical Society,
	which will make these available under license.)  All these fonts
	may be converted to gf format (the format produced by the METAFONT
        program) by using the MFware program pktogf.

Old METAFONT fonts. AMS fonts-- Cyrillc, and special symbols (created with
	old METAFONT-in-SAIL).  Converted to PK format.  There is no
	use in the mf files for these unless you are running a DEC10 or
	DEC20 with a SAIL compiler.

Fonts in pxl format. No more.  All the best drivers use gf or pk these days.
	If you really need pxl, you will have to compile and run pktopx.

NOTE. for those who wish to go on using am series fonts, the files
	am_plain.tex, am_lfonts.tex and am_webmac.tex are provided.

Drivers for dvi output.

	imagen(2 styles), qms(2 styles), LaserWriter (PostScript),
	LN03.  These all produce intermediate files of one sort
	or another.  Get in touch with Nelson Beebe Be...@CS.UTAH.EDU
	if you need an HP LaserJet driver.

	Symbolics LGP, Ln01, Versatec.  (These are all obsolescent, and
	are no longer maintained.)

Compilation is now based entirely on Web-to-C, but the pascal compilation
files have been left on the tape in compressed format (not updated).  After
about 6 months, they will be removed, unless there is some urgent
reason for keeping them.

Here is a partial list of successful compilations under Web-to-C:

	Sun-2, SunOS 3.2 (register variables may be ok here)
	Sun-3, SunOS 3.2 (no register variables), SunOS 3.4, 3.5, 4.0FCS
	Sun-4, SunOS 3.2-4, using cc -O, and SunOS 4.0FCS with cc -O4.
	Sun-386i under Sunos 4.0
	Sun-3(280) using gcc 1-29. with optimization on all but tex4.c
	Sequent Balance, Dynix 2.1.1.
	Vaxen running 4.2, 4.3BSD, and Ultrix, using cc. 
	Convex: Everything works, but -O breaks web2c itself, so don't use it
		when compiling that program; it's ok for TeX etc.
	Amdahl running UTS.
	Apollo, SR9.7 and SR10.0 (beta).
	Ridge 32 running ROS 3.5 and C compiler version 2.1B
	UNIXpc (aka 3b1 or PC7300) running System V version 3.51.
	MIPS R/1000, compiler version 1.21
	Masscomp (not sure of model designation)
	Iris workstation.
	Celerity C1260, UNIX version 3.4.78, without -O.  
	RT/PC running AOS(formerly ACIS)4.3; typedef unsigned char schar

		Still at the hacker stage but workable
	Interactive 386/ix Vers. 1.0.5, (System V Rel. 3.1) minor problems
		owing to a bug in the C compiler. (Special patch available)
	Tahoe Some problems with weave.
	ELXSI 
        Encore

The version of TeX produced through WEB-to-C is smaller, faster,
tastier and altogether superior to the pascal compilation.  It has the
additional advantage that if your site needs a TeX with a truly
gigantic capacity for boxes and macros, you can compile it under C.
(UC Berkeley pascal puts a 16-bit limitation on array indices, which
prevents this expansion.)  It is genuine TeX, and passes the nefarious
trip test in all respects.  The above remarks are true for metafont,
texware, BibTeX and mfware, and should ultimately be true for all
programs written in the original form of WEB.  C compilation has been
successful on a wide range of Unix machines, and has become the only
system fully supported in the UnixTeX distribution, but it is also
likely to smoke out bugs in some C compilers on new systems just as
the pascal compilation did for many versions of pascal.

Since TeX is free public-domain software, just about everything that
can be sent out in source form is included on the tape.  There are no
licensing restrictions, and only minor copyright restrictions as noted
in the affected files.

The site distributions of TeX are coordinated through the TeX
Users Group (TUG) as part of the services of TUG to its members.
We urge all users of TeX and METAFONT to join the TeX Users Group,
to support and benefit from its activities---particularly the
journal, TUGboat.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Call or write to: The TeX Users Group %
%                   P. O. Box 9506      %	Pierre A. MacKay
%		    Providence, RI      %	TUG Site Coordinator for
%                            02940-9506	%	Unix-flavored TeX
% (401) 751-7760                        %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

========================================================================
  I have nothing to do with TeX so please don't ask me anything about
 the above, I'm simply reprinting the info.  BTW, I did find that the 
 single sheet of installation instructions to be wholly inadequate, in
 fact I still don't have TeX installed. After loading the tape and folling
 the instructions, the distribution managed to eat up a little more than
 30 Meg bytes of disk.  If I knew a bit more about what I was doing, I
 could probably delete several Meg of fonts.

Gordon Vickers 408/991-5370 (Sunnyvale,Ca); {mips|pyramid|philabs}!prls!gordon

Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!lsuc!eci386!woods
From: wo...@eci386.uucp (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Summary: Problems?  With *roff?  Humph!
Message-ID: <1989Jul17.211715.6273@eci386.uucp>
Date: 17 Jul 89 21:17:15 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <1044@kuling.UUCP> 
<8161@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <330@umabco.UUCP> <1111@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Reply-To: wo...@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates: Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 53

In article <1...@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> ga...@jolnet.UUCP (Gregory Gulik) writes:
> 
> nroff: Hard to use.  Yeah, I know, a pro can whip out a document in
> 	a matter of seconds.  I've heard that one a million times.
> 	But, let's say you would like to do something not very common,
> 	would you prefer to dig through your thick UNIX manuals,
> 	or traverse a couple menus to find what you want?

And to become a "pro" at typing simple *roff documents, using a
good quick-reference card, takes a couple of hours.  As has been
said, the menu's probably won't let you do something uncommon in
the first place.  The DWB documentation and the plethora of other
publications about *roff will provide a vast body of knowledge
from which to draw, and will help you do almost anything
imaginable.

Perpetuating the myth (YES MYTH) about Unix documentation doesn't
help any.  Neither does perpetuating the myth that people will not
read a manual or book to learn about something they want to do.

> WP:	EXPENSIVE!  Yes, maybe a company CAN afford to buy it for
> 	every one of it's users, but there are poor UNIX people
> 	out in the real world.  Yes, us students dont' exactly have
> 	$1000+ to shell out for the program.  (Hey, the PC version
> 	is still pretty expensive)

How true.  $3,500.00CDN for WP for an NCR Tower 32/600.  But DWB
is usually quite inexpensive, if not already bundled with your
system.  Of course some people find vi so repulsive they'd rather
use ed!  I don't know why a simple full screen editor is not a
standard part of Unix yet.  Perhaps it should even have Wordstar
key-bindings as the default, with Emacs as an option.

I've also seen the objection against *roff because of the ease of
hiring people already trained with WP.  Why not re-train them.
The experience will undoubtably help raise their understanding of
computers.  If you can't train a person to use *roff in a very
short time, they probably shouldn't be attempting to do that kind
of a job at this time.

The big stumbling block is often the simple act of entering the
text to be word-processed.  Again, a simple full screen editor
bundled with Unix would help tremendously.  Perhaps Jove, or
MicroEmacs (gag!) are good alternatives.  [ 1/2 :-) ]

NOTE:  You could probably substitute TeK for *roff, and many
probably will!  :-)
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]		Toronto, Ontario CANADA

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!mimsy!chris
From: ch...@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <18606@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 89 05:54:41 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <1044@kuling.UUCP> 
<1989Jul17.211715.6273@eci386.uucp>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 72

In article <1989Jul17.211715.6...@eci386.uucp> wo...@eci386.uucp
(Greg A. Woods) writes:
>... to become a "pro" at typing simple *roff documents, using a
>good quick-reference card, takes a couple of hours.  As has been
>said, the menu's probably won't let you do something uncommon in
>the first place.  The DWB documentation and the plethora of other
>publications about *roff will provide a vast body of knowledge
>from which to draw, and will help you do almost anything
>imaginable.

This is true.  n/troff's major failing, though, is (in my opinion)
in its blind acceptance of virtually arbitrary input.  If you feed
it modem-noise, it will produce *something*; the only question is
what.  n/troff is simply not helpful enough at pointing out errors.

(Its next-down failing is that it sets type line-by-line, which makes
it hard to prevent bad hyphenation, widows, clubs, and the like.  TeX
typesets things a page at a time [approximately] and can do a better
job, although chapter-at-a-time would be better yet.)

>I've also seen the objection against *roff because of the ease of
>hiring people already trained with WP.  Why not re-train them.
>The experience will undoubtably help raise their understanding of
>computers.

The type of manager who hires `word processor' temporaries typically is
disinterested in raising his% hirelings' understandings.  Also, many
people---particularly those in secretarial positions---seem to have
`compuphobia'.  They fix the idea `I can't program computers' (despite
the fact that they do it every time they set their digital alarm
clocks) and have to be fooled into it (`this ain't a computer, it's a
Word Processor').  Unfortunately, this approach seems to work as well
as more direct education---at least at first.  (Indeed, from some
points of view, it may work better, as it leaves behind a pool of
people with limited skills, who will still be there next time they
are needed.)
-----
% I get the feeling some might object to `her'.  Perhaps no one would
  object to the non-animist pronoun (`its').
-----

>The big stumbling block is often the simple act of entering the
>text to be word-processed.  [a good screen editor, by which he means
>`not vi'] bundled with Unix would help tremendously.

Maybe; maybe not.  One of the big advantages of WYSIWYG `word
processors' here is that the typist gets immediate feedback, not only
of the text being entered, but also of the control operations.  By
definition, that feedback will always be missing from `batch
formatters'.  On the other hand, WYSIWYG systems tend to lack
structural feedback.  For some purposes this is fine, and word
processors do have their places.  For others---including letter-
writing, which is one of those `business applications'---reusability
and skipping irrelevant details are important; structure-oriented batch
formatters win here.  (`.LH' or `\letterheader' can generate the
company logo and the return address all at once; a phone number need
only be changed in one place; etc.  WYSIWYG systems tend to allow these
things as special cases, if at all.  If your case is more special
than most, you may be out of luck.)

Anyway, there really are tradeoffs.  If you need a series of different
one-shot special-purpose documents, or if you have spot a WYSIWYG
system that does exactly what you have to do, a `word processor' may be
the right thing.  If you want to do fine typesetting, though:  if you
want to print books, journals, theses, and the like: then you probably
want something like troff or TeX.  (And---Valar help you---if you are
producing advertisements, colour pictures, glossies, and so on---there
is probably nothing that does *exactly* what you need.  Raw PostScript
might come close.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	ch...@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/