🚀 go-pugleaf

some thoughts on a few recent threads:

sowa@amdew.llnl.gov (Erik C. Sowa) writes:
: In article <1992Apr10.061938.11118@utstat.uucp>, philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
: >I indicated using Postscript fonts with NeXT TeX is not as easy as
: >using them with Textures. 
: 
: It's as easy as snarfing Rokicki's upgrades to dvips and texview from
: labrea.stanford.edu and installing them. They even use the New Font
: Selection Scheme. I don't know beans about Textures, but I do know that
: I like free upgrades by ftp. I hope the newer versions are incorporated
: into NS 3.0.
: 

I don't think this trivially easy step will resolved Prof. McDunnough's 
complaints, he wants the use of postscript fonts to be as "easy" as it is
with Textures, which use only postscript fonts.  For the record, using
postscript fonts with NeXT-TeX is absolutely straightforward, just one
line in LaTeX, and in plain TeX you can write a Macro like that given 
in the TeXbook which, once written, again makes the use of the PS fonts
a one liner. The PS fonts are the *only* ones I use because I don't like
the CM ones, and I have E-mailed McDunnough on a couple of occasions 
offering to help him with this and not gotten any reply.  I wish he
would take me up on it because it might cut down on his EXCESSIVE WHINING
in this newsgroup ---- I'm sorry, in my time on the net I've 
avoided flaming anyone but I JUST CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE!  So I'm going
to "lose my virginity" on this issue.  

In yet another fit of kvetching McD. wrote 

>In article <1992Apr9.174420.15689@cs.yale.edu> 
>>nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>>
>>X-Windows can be had *free* (public domain versions), or
>>with commercial support from Pencom (and others) for $249.

>The free version is not supported and isn't as nice as either Pencom's or
>the Mac's one.
>>
>>We have had no "set up" problems with TeX on the NeXT, and
>>I haven't seen many flamefests about it in these newsgroups.
>
>I indicated using Postscript fonts with NeXT TeX is not as easy as
>using them with Textures. NeXT TeX is very nice. Nevertheless I do
>know many people who are TeX "fiends" who would argue that Textures
>is the better product. I'm no TeX expert but setting up TeX on the
>Mac is trivial. Moreover it does continuous previewing.


Now this to my mind is the height of pissantry since it comes from 
someone who has repeatedly WHINED about the high cost of software.  Why
does it cost so much?  Among other reasons because it's supported.  He then
turns around and talks about how great TeXtures is vs. NeXT-TeX without
mentioning the relative costs.  How much is TeXtures now Phil?  Last I
checked the fonts alone were $195, and, just as a data point, 
this TeX fiend checked out both packages and found NeXT-TeX clearly
better in all senses, and FREE with the machine to boot. The continuous
previewing in Lightning Textures is nice, but only for documents which
are not difficult to typeset, ie <4-5 pages and with not too many 
equations and no tables or matrices. But if that's the case why are
you using TeX in the first place?

All of this is really just one drop in my ocean of discontent with 
McDunnough.  He constantly writes about how "the Mac is better at
X, the PC is better, this software is easier than that" but always 
finishes by saying " like the NeXT best."  Well thank god for that!
How much would we have to put up with if you didn't like it best?
Is this a lifestyle kind of thing?  Does he go home to his wife in the
evening and say "well my secretary has bigger breasts, and my grad
student has nicer hair, and our neighbor is funnier, but I like
you best"?  --- drat, keyboard is wet from dripping sarcams :-)

What bugs me about all of this is that I cannot remember
the last time he wrote anything in this group even vaguely helpful to
someone, pointing them to an archive or offering a tip on using software,
say.  There are several "you know whos" on this group who can be 
quite obnoxious and engage in flame wars (guess I'll get to be in that
club now :-) but who are also noteworthy for trying to give people a
hand with technical problems, recommending software, etc.  The NeXT is
hardly perfect --- it's a joke that after all of this time there are still
no CAD packages or a page lay out app like Quark (neither of which I have use
for myself, but both are reasonable measurements of a system's merits) 
---  and many of the points he raises are valid, but this constant carping
and comparing are neither *constructive*  nor informative ---  of course
some things are better on the Mac and some things are better on a PC, and
some on a Sun. Big deal, the Commodore 64 weighs less than the NeXT and
the Sinclair was smaller, is that a reaon to buy either? ---- particularly
when much of it is not of the form "you can't do this on a NeXT" but
instead "gee, you have to learn something to do this on a NeXT."  Or have
to pay for the software, or have to install it, or. . . . . 

From what has been written I feel enormous sympathy for anyone who has
been snared by Neuron and I hope the new Supras (even cheaper than Neuron's
*upgrade*) work beautifully under 3.0 (natch, I bought one :-) but 
complaining that every little feature of a computer isn't superior to
all other products, or that not everything you want to do is "plus and 
play" is a waste of time and bandwith (like flames are really useful, oops!:-)


To conclude, a question:


I use NewsGrazer on the NeXT and tin when I log in from home. Is it 
possible to make a kill file to filter out articles by a "certain author"
who I've grown weary of?

Tom --- have to buy an asbestos suit now --- Marchioro

PS:  The joke in all of this is that a local NeXT rep told me McDunnough has
decided to buy two more stations.  Will his postings rise proportionally?