Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-10-15:22
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 01:39:28 +0300

Topics:
	 Thanks and thoughts
	 Re: Usability of docs, multiple formats, etc.
	 Re: More on ascii docs reply by Michael Johnson 
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-20:53
	 RE: another idea
	 RE: another idea
	 RE: another idea

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Thanks and thoughts
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:32:09 +0300

Thanks to all of the folks who've so diligently been working on the LDP.  As
with everything else which linux touches, it is truly amazing.  I wish I had
more time to contribute.  (I've been looking for jobs which would accomodate
time for linux hacking.)  The work you've done is truly phenomenal and the
direction everyone is headed is better and more excellent in every way.
Thank you again.

A few points:
(1) Though I've never read Knuth's book or any other of the online
    documentation, I've never had any problems with using the Gray Matter
    Parser to read TeX or LaTeX or info.
(2) Several succint explenations have been provided about using LaTeX and
    the SLS T1-3 disks.  But would including a standard
    "README_if_you_don't_know_LaTeX" hurt?
(3) Even though we'd like it much more if we could use a better ASCII file
    generator, would it hurt to have a make file which will generate
    distributions for these documents.  The ps, dvi, and ascii files are
    never edited (I wouldn't think).  (No offense intended, but) are all
    of you UNIX-brained people generating distrubitions BY HAND?  Having
    a standard make file to turn tex into the other formats for the given
    LDP books would certainly seem easier.  Wouldn't running a make program
    which generated the necessary gziped tars and automatically put them
    at the proper ftp site save LOTS of time.  If some of you are already
    doing what I've suggested, please pardon my verbal expulsiveness, but
    having a method which is common to the LDP would make the life of 
    current and future maintainers easier.  A well-done make file shouldn't
    take an hour even for the time it would save in manually generating these
    things.
(4) I also think that a make file which auto-ftped the files to their storage
    site would encourage updates more often.
(5) The make file could also send a message to the DOC channel saying
    that a new version has been released AND if a history file is being
    maintained it could pull the notes out of the history file and include
    them in the mail message.

Again:

Thanks for all the amazing work everybody has been doing.  (I wish I had
time!)

Pardon me if my suggestions are already being done or don't make sense.

-chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Free software isn't free, but expensive software is expensive."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Jim Lynch)
Subject: Re: Usability of docs, multiple formats, etc.
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 18:02:34 +0300

Please don't take this as flame or any other type of criticism, but
I do agree that it is not trivial to find/install the necessary 
software to read these various formats,.  I have started out to install
TeX at least 4 different times, both on Linux or my Sun and was unable to
complete the task.  If my memory is correct, I needed the information in
a TeX document to install it in one case, and time constraints accounted
for the failure in another.  Kurt would have been proud!

Does some one have a document that tells us all of the various formats
that are being used, a fairly simple "how-to" describing the method
of obtaining/installing a reader for those formats, etc?  

Also keep in mind that there are a number of us that do not/cannot 
run X windows just yet.

Of course, ascii versions of the documents, as mentioned  by others would 
also help.

Keep up the good work, guys, just help us help you by finding a way that
we can review your work.  I assume since you aren't writing it for your 
own gratification, that you do want others to read it. 8^)

Jim.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lynch, Sales Analyst,  Cray Research, Inc. / ARS: K4GVO
Southeast District, Phone: (404) 631-2254, Email: [email-masked]
Suite 270, 200 Westpark Drive, Peachtree City, GA 30269

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Jim Lynch)
Subject: Re: More on ascii docs reply by Michael Johnson 
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 18:49:40 +0300

If you haven't alrady done so, please ignore my previous message.
After reading Michael's (and Matt's) messages, I withdraw my comments.

Except I want to take exception with a couple of things.

> I have noticed that the only thing so far to come out of the ASCII
> faction has been complaining.  I've noticed a strong lack of work from
> that direction.  That's fine -- not everybody has time to do lots of
> writing.  However, please remember that he who pays the piper calls
> the tune, and at least don't rail against us for not doing what we
> have already said we would do.

I don't know who the ASCII faction is, but if it is those of us who 
haven't gotten TeX to work, it should be obvious why we haven't been
able to do any work.  I also take exception with the statement that
suggests we can easily read Latex input.  It is very distracting.

Jim (don't mind me, I'm just frustrated) Lynch.

Oh I have attemped to use archie to find a "Tex" site like you suggested
but do you know how many entries have the name "tex" in them?  Rather
than waste hours sorting through tens (or hundreds) of lines could you
please (see I'm being nice 8^) tell me the name of a nearby (to MN) TeX
archive site?  Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lynch, Sales Analyst,  Cray Research, Inc. / ARS: K4GVO
Southeast District, Phone: (404) 631-2254, Email: [email-masked]
Suite 270, 200 Westpark Drive, Peachtree City, GA 30269

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-9-20:53
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 20:16:03 +0300

Folks,

This is certainly getting out of hand. I'd like to clear up the confusion
once and for all, and be done with it.

It's very simple. Go out and get LaTeX if you don't have it. It produces
.dvi files, which can be converted to almost any printer type. Or, you can
use dvips to make PostScript. (And, if you don't have a PostScript printer,
you can use ghostscript to print it on a dot-matrix printer).

There are many options. I do not feel, however, that Greg has the right
to complain about the way we are doing things; this is how we've decided to
do it, long ago. More than 600 pages of LaTeX have been written for the LDP
so far; I for one am not about to renig and use some other kind of formatting
just so those who are not resourceful enough to use LaTeX can help us out.

> From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
> 
> So now alls I have to do is go buy a postscript printer, good, I can
> certainly afford to do that to support this hobby I have here.

No, see above.

> X11 and TeX are both items I can do without running this 'free' access
> Linux site. What is the software needed to convert the TeX source to plain
> ascii format or at the least, to be able to use this rather old 9-pin
> printer I have here. 

detex, or LameTeX, or just read the source. Or get LaTeX and do it 
'the Right Way'. :)

> Something along the lines of program file >/dev/lp2 and have a rather
> resonable chance of getting it printed without a lot of useless
> underlining or bold face being done to the poor printer? 

Boldface, underlining, etc. is not 'useless'. However, if you just want 
straight ASCII, you can use detex. The source is not that hard to read as
it is, anyway.

I apologize that use of a professional formatting system is inconvenient
to some. However, those that are really serious about working on LDP docs
can make do. For the most part, even I don't have the ability to print
The manuals out; I mostly use the source and xdvi. You should try it as well.

> > See above; send changes to the LaTeX source.
> 
> Again, you are cutting out the pssibilty of having many proofreaders
> available to you by having just one format. And making it a requirement
> that anyone who wants to help is required to know and use more hardware
> than they may be willing to give room or time for.

That's like telling me that it's silly to require everyone to write in 
English. LaTeX is quite popular, I assure you.

> Early on it was mentioned that ascii was to be available also.

Yes, but AFTER we had the resources to produce ASCII from the LaTeX 
(e.g., LameTeX). 

> From: [email-masked] (Gavin Thomas Nicol)
> 
> Well, a lot of people seem to be worried about the format of
> documents. I though we had all agreed that LaTeX would be used for
> book-like stuff, man for man pages, and texinfo for GNU stuff.

Yes, we did. Apparently that wasn't made clear enough.

> BTW. It might be a good idea to update my entry in the LDP guide to
> reflect the work I am doing. I am listed as doing a "reference
> manual", though in fact, most of that will come from GNU.
> 
> nick

Will do.

mdw

------------------------------

From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: another idea
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:12:14 +0300

>> So now alls I have to do is go buy a postscript printer, good, I can
>> certainly afford to do that to support this hobby I have here.

> Or get ghostscript, or get a dvi driver for your printer, or get
> dvi2tty, or read the source (not really that difficult), or, 

Oh, good. An answer, ok, I went to SLS, installed, ghostscript, typed
gs, oh shucks, I need X installed to run this one, 15-25 megs needed.

> don't know any of these things, ask for help.  It has been done in the
> past, and doesn't hurt *that* much.  It *is* much more effective than
> making fun of us for trying to produce high-quality docs.

One of the major contributors asked what programs he needed to look at the
docs and was ignored. High quailty docs is not the problem here.

> detex, available as
> sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/packages/TeX/utah-mirror/pub/detex/detex.trz, (a
> whole 32 K)

Ok, another program, I went and got it, installed it, core dump. Looking
around through the source, I see it needs all the fonts from TeX installed,
maybe the rest of TeX, 9 megs of space required to print a 100k file.

>> Again, you are cutting out the pssibilty of having many proofreaders
>> available to you by having just one format. And making it a requirement
>> that anyone who wants to help is required to know and use more hardware
>> than they may be willing to give room or time for.

> You are making more of this than there is.  It's not that hard.  If
> you don't care enough to try one of the many ways that exist to print
> it, I don't want you as a proofreader.  I will not go through the hell
> of maintaining multiple source formats just so you can proofread in
> the way you want.  I don't feel rotten about that.

Alls that someone asked is what programs are available to print this, 
he was ignored, your type of attitude goes a long way in maintaining a
professional atmoshere in which other Linux activists can participate,
in a worthwhile cause of making documentation available to the masses.

Far be it that someone who has contributed to Linux as much as some of the
volunteers have, not know a thing about TeX, or not have the room to install
TeX, but still wanting a way to access the docs to help in what ever way
that person feels, possibly even be able to contribute something worthwhile,
or correct something others may have missed in the docs, just because, as
you say 'its hell maintaining multiple source formats'.

Give ME the means to convert the docs, without using 9-25 megs of disk space
that is reserved for making Linux files available to people without net
access, and I will maintain the other formats. YOU don't have to do it all.

I DO have access to an internet site, I DO have access to that site, to
provide whatever ftp'able directorys are needed, I DO have the backing of
the site adminstrator to provide other formats of the docs, I DO have others
that are interested in this type of format, there ARE others that feel as I
do. 

I AM tired of condescending attitude of SOME volunteers, just because I,
and others, do not have the space to devote 9-25 megs just to print a 100k
file of documentation! I AM tired of the belittling attitude of SOME
volunteers, just because they have the room to install TeX, are 'TeX-savvy'
and apparently feel they are better than OTHER contributors to the Linux
arena because of this knowledge!

---
               S'Qually Holler's BBS  +1-206-235-0270
                   Another WaffleIron on Linux!
         For anonymous uucp access, login: nuucp word: nuucp
           uucp squally!/sc2/bbs/filelist.z  filelist.z

------------------------------

From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: another idea
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:15:28 +0300

> I think part of this is people without a clue trying to get things
> done their way.  

I think you have that turned around, those in charge of the docs seem
to want it there way, and the *ell with what is good for those who are
learning, or those who may not have the room to install all the programs
required to do it your way.

> While you probably know which way is up -- you seem
> to run a bbs -- 

Yes, I have been suppling Linux files to those who do not have access to 
the internet, for over two years, one year ago, I dedicated ALL 745 megs
of this 386 system to Linux and also gating of comp.os.linux{*} to the
computer communications community called fidonet, a conglomeration of over
21,000 386 & 486 systems that use ma bell for their communication means.
A perfect set of systems for the use of Linux, although, albeit, mostly
various BBS type systems. 

This system receives calls from all over the world because they know I 
stay tuned to the latest in software for Linux.  

> whoever it was who started this whole thread should
> realize that everyone and his cousin in the internet community uses a
> derivative of TeX for their text formatting needs.  The AMS folk,
.
The people in the Linux arena should 'know' that their product is being
distributed to those that do not know a thing about the internet, and
probably much less about what GNU is, AMS, or the others. They have 
discovered a system that truly multi-tasks without the use of windows,
desqview, or os/2. They can use this system to their advantage in their
everyday needs, without having to 'know' that "everybody and his cousin"
uses a derivitive of TeX. 

> Recognition of the fact that the doc project is a bunch of volunteers
> trying to produce decent quality manuals for linux is in order.  They
> could not hope to have decent quality without some type of formatting
> package, nor could they be expected to all go out and buy (to pick a
> wholly inadequate example) wordperfect to work with.  From what I have
> seen of the work, the linux community will very soon be blessed with
> high quality manuals actually fit for printing and reading, rather
> than just grepping when needed.

The whole Linux community is "a bunch of volunteers", the fact that quality
manuals are being composed is not an issue here, the fact that these manuals
do not print out easily, or with out special programs for the formatting of
the output to a printer, the most common printer in the world of 386 & 486
systems is.

> most printers.  TeX is 5.5 megs, gs+fonts is maybe 4.  This is hardly
> a big requirement in the way of space.  Xdvi displays a very legible
> rendition of a dvi file; printing each draft is not needed if you want
> to offer suggestions.

There are a lot of Linux systems that either do not have the room to install
9 megs of TeX, or are not willing to install 15-25 megs of X, just to print
out a 100k documentation file on {whatever} they want to look at.

[more of silly never-ending thread deleted :)]

Actually it is even more silly, that the Linux doc-project volunteers
do not want to support a large percentage of those that are using the 
Linux system in their everyday {business,hobby,misc-ventures}, without
making said systems install 9-35 megs of programs just to print a 100k
file on a printer.

> Does a FAQ or doc project something exist telling about the programs
> in the SLS useful for producing printed output?  Judging from the
> length of this thread, there are more than a few people out there who
> would benefit from a how to print things faq...  I would be glad to
> write such a thing if the world thinks it to be of use.

A faq on printing is certainly in order, that is how all of this got 
started, someone who has supplied a large part of the pre-compiled 
programs to the SLS series asked how to do just that, he never received
an answer from the other volunteers in the Linux community, just ignored,
by those volunteers.

I get these same questions on a daily basis.

---
               S'Qually Holler's BBS  +1-206-235-0270
                   Another WaffleIron on Linux!
         For anonymous uucp access, login: nuucp word: nuucp
           uucp squally!/sc2/bbs/filelist.z  filelist.z

------------------------------

From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: another idea
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:16:33 +0300

> One of my favorite flame wars coming up!  Wonderful!  I feel angry and
> excited already!  _This_ time I'll sure burn them all so they'll think
> Hell is a cool place to be!

As they say, I got my nomex underware and shades on, extinguisher
is right next to the desk, just it case it gets a little warm.

> On second thoughts, I think I'll mostly skip it this time.  Takes too
> much time away from useful work.  

That is one of the problems, every one is ignoring the problem, nothing
like a flame war to get people to at least think about other possibilities,
instead of being a bit 'one-sided' in their line of thinking.

> I'll just point out a few facts:

> 1. The LDP books are being written using LaTeX.  That probably won't
>    change.

I don't think anyone expects, nor has intentions of changing this avenue 
of making docs available least of all me. The intention I have is to have
people consider the 'possiblities' of having more than one format, to make
it easier to promote the Linux cause with people who have no idea what these
formats mean.

> 2. Man pages and Info docs are written using the appropriate tools.
>    That probably won't change either.

See #1

> 3. If you aren't satisfied with this, flaming does you no good.  Try
>    using factual arguments to convice us.  We're all fairly reasonable
>    people and will listen to facts, if presented politely.  If the
>    facts are good enough, we'll reconsider.  (But they have to be
>    very, very good facts in this case.)

One has to be open to the presentation of facts, and not predisposed 
to the line of "they have to be very, very, good facts", before anyone
(except me, of course) would even attempt to come face to face with some
of the major contributors of Linux to discuss the format of various
documentation available for Linux.

> 4. LaTeX source is definitely not unreadable even if you don't know
>    LaTeX.  Try it sometime.  Quoting from some song: ``My little baby
>    sister could do it with ease.''

This also involves the printing of Latex docs, all the extra characters in
a TeX formatted document make it just a tad difficult to view, when one does
not have the means installed to do that and even a bit more difficult to
print, let alone knowing what it takes. "My little baby sister' could do it
too' if she had a computer with more than a 30 meg HD installed.

> 5. Formatted versions of the docs will be provided in multiple
>    formats, including, but not limited to, PostScript, ASCII, and
>    Laserjet.  Essentially, any format that is easy to generate from
>    the LaTeX source will be provided.

This has already been established for the LDP project, the question remains 
if it 'should' be considered to make these formats available 'before' the 
final versions are ready, for those who may be interested in helping, but
do not have the {time.disk.space.no.how} to work with them in the present
format.

> 6. Not all formats are provided yet.  That's because this is still
>    very, very unfinished stuff yet.

The people are available to help, they do not have the means
available to them to help, when they ask about the programs that are
available, they are either ignored or brought into a catch-22 situation of
having to install various programs, without having the documentation in a
form that they can read BEFORE they attempt to install the program.

This applies to the current distribution of the SLS, more than the doc
project stuffs, but still a valid point.

> 7. As always in Linux, if you want it done _now_, you do it.  If you
>    won't, then shut up.

Again, this type of attitude does not impress me. Make the tools available,
don't ignore the questions, have the docs in formats that don't require one
to have 9-25 megs of files installed, and you just might be surprized at the
amount of help that is generated.

> 8. Don't flame volunteers, it does only harm.  Remember networking?
>   (Actually, I'm prone to do it myself: that's the major reason why I
>   stopped doing the Meta-FAQ and INFO-SHEET: they were mostly
>   ignored.)

When major volunteers ignore other major voluneteers, it is time for someone
like me to get involved, even if it starts a flame war, as I stated above, I
have my nomex on, I can handle a few flames. As for the FAQ's, none of this
is covered, it is left up to the imagination of the person installing say
the SLS, to figure out what program does what, one of the reasons this LDP
was started, to answer some of those questions.

> 9. If LaTeX is too big an obstacle for you to be able to help the LDP,
>    then tough.  I don't think anyone wants to scare off anyone from
>    the LDP, but don't expect us to go to a lot of trouble just to
>    accomodate a couple of LaTeX-haters.  Remember: you know have to
>    install LaTeX, since the document source is almost plain text as it
>   is.

Again, this type of attitude is not a good way to exhibit a professional
atmosphere in which to bolster the cause of Linux, let alone provide for the
possibilities that other Linux activists *may* have something to contribute
to the worthwhile, overall cause of Linux. It is one sided thinking like
this that prevents others from helping or even asking about things. It is
attitudes like this that contribute to *some* of the volunteers into
thinking that maybe, they should let people fend on their own, or to ignore
valid questions from other Linux volunteers. Full circle, again.

> Just to be constructive, here's a few hints for reading LaTeX source:

> - % starts a comment that continues to the end of the line
> - \ starts a command word; mostly, you can ignore these
> - {} delimit parameters (if after a command word), and groups
> - [] delimit (some) parameters to command words
> (and those were real hard to guess).

That is real helpful, thank you for sharing that. 

> Unless someone comes up with actual facts, I'm going to ignore this
> discussion from now on.

Again, with the attitude, that is how all this started.

---
               S'Qually Holler's BBS  +1-206-235-0270
                   Another WaffleIron on Linux!
         For anonymous uucp access, login: nuucp word: nuucp
           uucp squally!/sc2/bbs/filelist.z  filelist.z

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------