🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov15.211043.21640@cbnewsl.att.com>, npn@cbnewsl.att.com (nils-peter.nelson) writes:
> In re: Someone explain what
> DWB 3.1 can do that I can't with 2.0 and a bit of net software?
> ===
> DWB 2.0 was regrettably buggy and very nonportable.
> If you are a University with slave labor...
  [ and so on, justifying the price ]

Nelson is justifiably proud of his product.  I can understand
and appreciate his enthusiasm.  But his words would have been
more appropriate in comp.newprod where exaggeration, misleading
inference, and hyperbole are expected.  And his product's
venerable heritage deserves more respect than he accords it.

Troff has a history.  Troff, tbl and eqn participated in the
birth of Unix.  Troff begat ditroff, and more accessories were
added.  ATT shipped them over a period of years in several
versions under two package names, Typesetter-Independent Troff
(a/k/a Ditroff) and Documenter's WorkBench.

These programs are notable for their portability--no slaves
required.  Like most programs, they contain bugs.  Yet, in spite
of the bugs, this software has produced millions of pages of
high-quality documents.  Indeed, one of the reasons often given
for the rise of Unix is its *inclusion* of powerful text
processing utilities.

I'll leave it to others to debate whether a maintenance release
warrants a fivefold price hike.  What prompts me to respond is
the--IMHO--cavalier attitude apparent in ATT's marketing of DWB.

Bill Tuthill said it well:
> I think this is finally the end of troff.  Hallelujah!  Thank you
> AT&T for finally driving a stake through its heart.
Unlike Tuthill, I think we've lost something.

Sure, troff is in its declining years.  Alternatives have
appeared; for lots of text munching jobs, some of them are
superior.  For the kinds of job that troff excels at, there is
at least one alternative, tex, with its own merits.  As a
publishing system, DWB's share of the Unix audience is limited
and dwindling.

Dick Dunn referred to DWB as a "'little' piece."  That it is,
but it is also a "key" piece when properly positioned.  Troff
and its accessory programs were invented to play a role in a
system that was designed as a toolbox.  Troff's great strength
lies in its ubiquity and its "toolness".  Old CAT troff is too
tired for contemporary duty, but ditroff still has spunk.  If
its presence could be relied on, software developers and mobile
users could build from it.  It's no prima donna, but--as an
integral part of Unix--ditroff's supporting role could help
carry the show.

While troff, in its current incarnation as ditroff, still has
legitimate uses, I believe that it is being misused by ATT's
marketing arm.  Now would have been a good moment in this tool's
history to enlarge, not diminish, its availability.  It ought to
be bundled with the OS where it could play the part it was
conceived for, not exiled to a loyal fan club's salon.

Reality check.  There's money to be made from a robust version
of ditroff.  There are organizations who, for whatever reason,
depend on it and can afford it.  I would like to argue that this
overlooks ditroff's potential to enhance the profitability of
Unix itself.  But, despite ditroff's potential to enhance the
*utility* of The Unix Operating System, my naive argument
probably won't wash.  Unix's market position has grown strong
enough that it can be sustained by marketing methods alone.
Unix no longer needs to rely on its integrity.  The play has
moved from Murray Hill to Greensboro.

So how can I deny ATT its right to profit from its intellectual
property?  I can't.  I can only clasp my hat to chest, cast my
eyes downward, and mumble: "I think we've lost something".

	Jay Plett
	jay@silence.princeton.nj.us