🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41d2jtINNg7c@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:

   Even if you had similar application needs, they could be met:

I'm a Linux partisan myself, but I have to admit that this is Linux's
weak spot so far...

   Word --> I use TeX. I get compliments about my typesetting work. LaTeX
   allows me to bang out software documentation without worrying about layout,
   cross-referencing, fonts, etc.

TeX is good for technical documentation of this sort, but it's weak
(and not very pleasant to use) for layout-intensive work.  The
newsletter I edited last year, for example, could not have been done
(in any practical sense) in TeX or its variants.  This was typically
36 pages (half sheet), with about 20 imported photos, a number of
stock graphic elements, and sometimes a large and complex graphic on
the cover (on one cover, we took a piece of clipart, superimposed "12"
in a fancy typeface on an angle and slanted and filled with a circular
fountain fill).  To make all the columns (top and bottom) line up
correctly, I frequently had to manipulate tracking over short pieces
of text.  I sometimes had to continue stories over pages.  This kind
of work is not practicable in TeX.

When Caldera comes out with Word Perfect for Linux, I'll probably buy
it unless the price is outrageous.  An office suite for Linux, along
with a strong draw/image processing package and a good layout package,
would completely solve this issue.  So would Wine, albeit clunkily.

Mind you, I'm no fan of WYSIWYG/GUI software for general purpose work
(text editing, email, and such).  For layout, though, it's a very
convenient paradigm.  However, the story editor left much to be
desired.  For actually editing text as part of my editing duties, I
would have greatly preferred emacs, and for spell checking, ispell.

Of course, Pagemaker is weak when it comes to cross referencing, and
it requires the user to make all of the layout decisions.  For writing
a manual, a program that automatically places everything correctly
(footnotes on the right page, drawings close to their references, good
cross referencing, and such) works better.

   CorelDraw --> I use Xfig. I have used Corel, and I thought that it rather
   sucked big time!  It did put me out of my misery with a GPF.  I've
   received compliments about my graphics work that was done in Xfig.

Xfig works reasonably well for basic illustrations, box & pointer
diagrams, and such.  For decorative graphics, logos, and such, Corel
works much better.  Xfig's file format is superb -- compact, yet
highly readable.

   I find that producing quality documents with great graphics using UNIX
   freeware is a straightforward affair.  Incidentally, I used to do some
   occasional graphics work on Mac computers; it's a pain in the rear by
   comparison.

I would be very interested in a set of tools (even commercial, if the
prices were reasonable) that could accomplish this kind of work, and
let me utilize the libraries of fonts & clipart that I have.  I would
certainly like to hear any suggestions that you (or anyone else) has.
-- 
Robert Krawitz <rlk@tiac.net>

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
Tall Clubs International  --  tci-request@think.com or 1-800-521-2512