🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

9 total messages Started by Ilya Tue, 21 May 1996 00:00
Better editors
#3846
Author: Ilya
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 00:00
72 lines
4919 bytes
Steve Withers (sbwwgtn@ibm.net) wrote:
|In <Dr4uyH.2so@postfix.cimpact.nl>, bo@postfix.cimpact.nl (Mailhost Master) writes:
 
> I can see it now, the night before that final paper is due, the one that
> needs the graphs and charts, italicizion and bold fonts.  What do you do?
> Microsoft Word?  No.  WordPerfect?  No.  PageMaker?  No.  You whip
> out...  vi and LaTeX!!!!!  yeah right.

 You are being  sarcastic, right? That is  what I do.  Vi and nroff or vim
 and latex or emacs and nroff. Cool stuff.

|>[flame on]

 Oh man, I am so scared now. I better run for my life.

 (...)
 
|>: >It's time Unix machines moved into the modern age of word processors.
|>
|>If  you  run  ANY  of  those  so-called  "modern  age" wordprocessors on
|>anything  less  than  a  fucking  P160, changing a font from "normal" to
|>"bold"  takes  forever.  And  it  won't get any better because all those
|>programs  are derived from earlier versions simply by adding more sloppy
|>code    to  an  already  sloppy  program.  You'll  end  up  with  a  1Gb
|>wordprocessor  that  eats  ALL  your resources while doing NOTHING. Even
|>Emacs will laugh at it. Your modern age is 20 years behind Unix.

 *nod* Thank you for the post, my invisible cyberspace friend.

 A couple of weeks ago I decided to compose my resume. 

 I went to  our Macintosh  computer lab, started  Word  Perfect or another
 word processor they have on there, forget  which.  Wanted to make certain
 words bold and/or underlined.  It took me ten minutes  to figure out how.
 No, I am not stupid, but Word Perfect is not a  user friendly program and
 I have not used it for a  long time anyway.   Typed in the resume.  Tried
 to save in on the floppy disk  and froze the machine.   Rebooted it.  Got
 frustrated, gave up and went to the Unix lab, fired  up emacs and my mind
 was like "Aahhh".  Pure editing satisfaction. Retyped the resume in about
 five minutes, formatted the file with nroff and was done.  Unix computers
 do not freeze   like Machintoshes.  They  do  a lot  of bad things,  they
 crash, but they   have never stolen my   resume  from me.   I  am not  an
 experienced Macintosh user but then Macs are not designed for experienced
 users  and do not  have  a steep  learning  curve.   I  have seen  people
 "freeze" Macs and I have done it myself a few times over the years.  Some
 of these  problems  occured entirely because  of my  errors and some were
 not.  A computer  or a software  package that freezes for whatever reason
 is absolutely unacceptable.  This is the reason I despise Macs among many
 other things in life.

 I was upset that day I lost my resume and 20 mitutes  of my life.  Little
 things like  that terribly frustrate   and upset  me, albeit  for   short
 periods  of time.   I  still use Macs  sometimes   just because  they are
 different from what  I am used  to.  They are fine, high-quality machines
 and when they perform as they should  and do not  disappoint me, they are
 great.  Eventually I retyped the resume with Word on a Mac and it decided
 to  be nice to  me and did not "freeze".    I suppose I  should thank the
 computer for it. If our Unix lab had a laser printer  like the Mac lab, I
 would certainly do it in emacs on a Sun worstation because it is the best
 combination I have ever encountered.

 Why I am posting this?

 I dunno. You figure it out.
  
==========================================================================
Ilya Beloozerov  Email: ibelooze@runet.edu
Public PGP key is available at http://www.cs.runet.edu/~ibelooze
This message is sponsored by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
==========================================================================
 
Re: Better editors
#3847
Author: Matt
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00
18 lines
2286 bytes
: |>If  you  run  ANY  of  those  so-called  "modern  age" wordprocessors on
: |>anything  less  than  a  fucking  P160, changing a font from "normal" to
: |>"bold"  takes  forever.  And  it  won't get any better because all those
: |>programs  are derived from earlier versions simply by adding more sloppy
: |>code    to  an  already  sloppy  program.  You'll  end  up  with  a  1Gb
: |>wordprocessor  that  eats  ALL  your resources while doing NOTHING. Even
: |>Emacs will laugh at it. Your modern age is 20 years behind Unix.

Hehe, too true. Give me that p160, a unix OS to run on it, vi, tex and
20 terminals, and 20 ppl will be laying out documents, 20 times as fast,
1/20th the cost.

-- 
Matt(hew) Jenkins. 2nd yr. Computer Science (RMIT Bundoora)
email: mdj@{arcadia|yallara}.cs.rmit.edu.au
Running DOS 6.2, Linux 1.2.8 on a 486/100/12/540
I like: Toranas, Beer, and Surfing the Net.
Re: Better editors
#3848
Author: Charles Bouldin
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00
33 lines
3007 bytes
In article <4nv72n$cku@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>, mdj@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au
(Matt) wrote:

> : |>If  you  run  ANY  of  those  so-called  "modern  age" wordprocessors on
> : |>anything  less  than  a  fucking  P160, changing a font from "normal" to
> : |>"bold"  takes  forever.  And  it  won't get any better because all those
> : |>programs  are derived from earlier versions simply by adding more sloppy
> : |>code    to  an  already  sloppy  program.  You'll  end  up  with  a  1Gb
> : |>wordprocessor  that  eats  ALL  your resources while doing NOTHING. Even
> : |>Emacs will laugh at it. Your modern age is 20 years behind Unix.
> 
> Hehe, too true. Give me that p160, a unix OS to run on it, vi, tex and
> 20 terminals, and 20 ppl will be laying out documents, 20 times as fast,
> 1/20th the cost.

Well, you don't have to run Unix to have a nice TeX environment. Textures
on the Macintosh is, IMHO, the best TeX ever made. It *is* kinda bizarre
to use a Mac and TeX...most of the people I know who use Macs think it is
very strange! But, the quality of the output, the superb portability of
the documents and the industrial strength capabilities make it worthwhile.

I used to (circa 1987) have people go into shock when they saw that my
full Textures install was about 6 megs, mostly fonts. Then Word 3(?) took
a lot less space. Now Textures still takes 6-8 megs, whilst Word or
WordPerfect can easily destroy 25-30 megs of disc space. Textures also
runs in considerably less memory!

The strange thing is that TeX, just by remaining true to its origins, has
managed to become the "lean and mean" alternative to the megabloat
wordprocessors that are now served up to the public. This is especially
strange since I remember when TeX was only considered suitable for
"mainframes"!!
Re: Better editors
#3849
Author: Shawn V. Hernan
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00
16 lines
1432 bytes
In article <4nrqg2$eek@newslink.runet.edu>, ibelooze@runet.edu (Ilya) wrote:

>like Machintoshes. 


Cool. A new name for machines running MkLinux!

Shawn

-- 
Shawn V Hernan
The University of Pittsburgh
Systems and Networks
412-624-6425
svh+@pitt.edu
Re: Better editors
#3850
Author: Shawn V. Hernan
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:00
22 lines
1792 bytes
In article <4nv72n$cku@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>, mdj@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au
(Matt) wrote:

>
> Hehe, too true. Give me that p160, a unix OS to run on it, vi, tex and
> 20 terminals, and 20 ppl will be laying out documents, 20 times as fast,
> 1/20th the cost.


You obviously haven't looked at the cost breakdowns for a typical
organization. Computers are cheap. Its *people* that are expensive. 20
people will cost much more than any of the common desktop computers. 

Shawn

-- 
Shawn V Hernan
The University of Pittsburgh
Systems and Networks
412-624-6425
svh+@pitt.edu
Re: Better editors
#3851
Author: Barry A. Warsaw
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 00:00
7 lines
1605 bytes

    >> like Machintoshes.

    SVH> Cool. A new name for machines running MkLinux!

Are we going to have to call them Macgnutoshes now? :-)
Re: Better editors
#3852
Author: Ilya
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00
18 lines
1957 bytes
Shawn V. Hernan (svh+@pitt.edu) wrote:
|In article <4nrqg2$eek@newslink.runet.edu>, ibelooze@runet.edu (Ilya) wrote:
|
|>like Machintoshes. 
|
|
|Cool. A new name for machines running MkLinux!


 Ah... very funny, sir. 


==========================================================================
Ilya Beloozerov  Email: ibelooze@runet.edu
Public PGP key is available at http://www.cs.runet.edu/~ibelooze
This message is sponsored by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
==========================================================================
Re: Better editors
#3853
Author: William Perry
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00
26 lines
1704 bytes
bwarsaw@cnri.reston.va.us (Barry A. Warsaw) writes:

> 
> 
>     >> like Machintoshes.
> 
>     SVH> Cool. A new name for machines running MkLinux!
> 
> Are we going to have to call them Macgnutoshes now? :-)

  How dare you slight the other contributors!  MachLiGNUXFreeTeXoshes!

perhaps we need to have:

echo "Welcome to Lignu" >| /etc/issue
for x in /var/adm/packages/*
do
 echo $x >> /etc/issue
done
echo "x " >> /etc/issue
uname -r >> /etc/issue

  in all distributions from now on? :)

-Bill P.
Re: Better editors
#3854
Author: Georg Wiegand
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:00
30 lines
2272 bytes

Hello!

>>>>> In article <svh+-2205961454470001@usenet.pitt.edu>
>>>>> �svh+@pitt.edu (Shawn V. Hernan)� wrote:

>
>In article <4nv72n$cku@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>, mdj@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au
>(Matt) wrote:
>
>>
>> Hehe, too true. Give me that p160, a unix OS to run on it, vi, tex and
>> 20 terminals, and 20 ppl will be laying out documents, 20 times as fast,
>> 1/20th the cost.
>
>
>You obviously haven't looked at the cost breakdowns for a typical
>organization. Computers are cheap. Its *people* that are expensive. 20
>people will cost much more than any of the common desktop computers. 

(1) Word for 20 users is expensive, while TeX for 1-1000++ users
    doesn't cost anything.
(2) You would work faster with TeX than with Word, so 20 p./TeX are
    faster than 20 p./Word.

Ciao, George
-- 
"I'd love to go out with you, but the last time I went out, I never
came back."
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads