Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-10-23:40
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 05:22:32 +0300

Topics:
	 Ghostscript space requirements
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-10-15:22
	 Re: Thanks and thoughts
	 More on ascii docs reply by Michael Johnson 
	 another idea

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

From: [email-masked] (Werner Almesberger)
Subject: Ghostscript space requirements
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 04:19:35 +0300

I've read several times in this thread that installing TeX or Ghostscript
would be unacceptable because of the large amount of disk space required.

du -c `cat /install/installed/ghostscr`  counts 919 kB, of which
cd cd /usr/local/lib/ghostscript; du -c doc examples  -> 388 kB are
probably superfluous. ldd `which gs`  shows that it needs libc, libm and
libX11. libX11 is 597 kB on my system. (Note: no Ghostscript fonts are
needed to print regular (La)TeX.)

(The exact number may vary a bit, depending on the version of SLS.)

This gives a total of 1128 kB. Fits on a floppy disk. It this _really_
too much ???

- Werner

-- 
   _________________________________________________________________________
  / Werner Almesberger, ETH Zuerich, CH      [email-masked] /
 /[email-masked]/

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

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-10-15:22
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 03:11:37 +0300

From: Greg Naber
> 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.
> 
> 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 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!

Your concerns are valid, however, you should be able to use the old
"gray matter parser" mentioned before to work with the LaTeX source IN ANY
CASE. Go out and invest in a book on LaTeX. You *can* work on the LDP docs
without installing *any* software (except a text editor, and, perhaps,
diff if you don't have it already). You don't need to print any of these
things out to read them and help us to revise them.

You're essentially complaining at us because you don't have the resources
to print our docs. That's not our fault. As has been pointed out, all you
need to work on the LDP manuals is some means of editing a text file,
namely, the LaTeX source.

What would you suggest we do? Write all of the docs in plain ASCII?
You know that is entirely unmaintainable and a waste of time. We sacrifice
simplicity for quality. 

I'm sorry that you have problems with printing our docs. However, don't 
complain to us about your lack of disk space or lack of money for a printer, 
and so on. Nobody's forcing you to help us out: those that have the resources,
do, those that don't, don't. To produce really professional documentation
is take quite a bit of software and diskspace.

So far I have not heard any useful suggestions from you, only complaints.
What would you suggest we do to fix the problem?

mdw

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael K Johnson)
Subject: Re: Thanks and thoughts
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 03:35:23 +0300

   (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?

We would like to have such a thing.  We do intend to have one when the
docs are released publically.  If anyone wants to write such a README
now, I will include it on the ftp site.

   (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

Generating distributions by hand is trivial.  tar cf foo.tar foo; gzip
foo.tar; is all it takes for source, and the rest is even more trivial.

       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

It's not too hard to manually ftp, either...

       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.

I also have to make them available...

   (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.

It's not too hard to send one manually...  And I don't keep a
changelog (I know, shame, shame... ;-)

It's not that these suggestions are bad, but that I don't think that
they are necessary for updates.  The thing that makes my update less
frequent than perhaps some people would like is not the difficulty of
packaging a distribution (absolutely trivial) but the fact that
editing a doc takes it out of sync with itself sometimes, and I do my
editing in big, efficient chunks.  Therefore, my version of the KHG is
not always in a form that would make sense for distribution.

For instance, I am in the process of almost completely re-writing the
section on device drivers, making it very much better.  However, until
I finish my initial re-write of that chapter, even an alpha release
would be curiously incomplete.

I hope this makes sense...

michaelkjohnson

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael K Johnson)
Subject: More on ascii docs reply by Michael Johnson 
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 03:47:51 +0300

   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.

I meant specifically the people that I have found so annoying, who
have been very loud about what they think ought to be done, which is
only and ever straight ascii...  I certainly wasn't referring to
people without the disk space necessary (per se).  I completely
understand that situation -- I have run up against 0 disk space left
before.  It's the railing and flaming that I dislike.

   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.

Gladly.  I meant to use archie to find detex, and that it would appear
on most tex sites.  Here is a list of places that I found it:

ftp.math.utah.edu:/poub/tex/pub/detex/
ftp.uu.net:/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume32/detex/
sun.soe.clarkson.edu:/sumit/detex.tar
wuarchive.wustl.edu:/usenet/comp.sources.misc/volume32/detex/

Those who are outside of the US might consider doing an archie search
on detex from a local archie server.

michaelkjohnson

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael K Johnson)
Subject: another idea
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 04:06:52 +0300

   > 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.

I am really honestly sorry that I forgot that SLS's version of
ghostscript is compiled to have X support.  Mine didn't.  You can
keep the ghostscript fonts that you have, and get the source from
prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu/ or from fine mirrors anywhere, including
ftp.uu.net.  It compiles and installs without trouble.  It didn't take
that long on my 386sx16...

   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.

What major contributor?  I think that you are making this up.  If not,
please be more specific.  And, no, high quality docs are not the
problem, they are the issue.  And we will not compromise on that.

   > 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, I am sorry.  I got that reference from archie, and thought that
it would be what we were looking for.  I think that the one that was
posted to comp.sources.unix might be what we are looking for.   It is
in volume 32, and can be retrieved from wuarchive and ftp.uu.net,
among other places.  I have included a reference in a seperate posting
to the exact location.  detex should not require tex fonts, and I am
sorry to have given you a bum lead.

   Alls that someone asked is what programs are available to print this, 

I'm sorry, but that representation of the start of this thread is
completely inacurate.   I will quote some of it here for you:

 When I see valid questions about various programs in comp.os.linux, the
 reply's always state, look at the documentation, that is what it's there for.

 So we are sending everyone to the docs to read them and they are again up
 against a blank wall, looking at a bunch of characters that are tossed in
 between/amongst text strings. 

 Or, we refer them to the FAQ, which doesn't say anything about how to read
 this documentation either... let along attempt to print it...

   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.

Well, actually, "he" wasn't ignored -- perhaps it would have been
better if he was.  Sarcasm will get you nowhere...

   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.

That's not a source format.  LaTeX is the *source* format.
Eventually, ascii will be a *target* format.  When WE have the means to
convert the docs into ascii, and we can maintain many formats, with no
problem.  The problem is not time -- it is *****CURRENT*****
availability of tools.  We can't give you tools now that are being
built now and will be finished in the future.  Is that OK?  May we be
human?

   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 an administrator of several ftp sites.  I DO have the support of
other people there for providing the docs in whatever format is
necessary, I KNOW that others are interested in these formats, and I
WANT to provide those formats WHEN I can.

   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!

I AM tired of the IRATE attitude of SOME volunteers, just becase I,
and others, do not have the tools yet to convert into their favorite
format.  I AM tired of the belittleing attitude of SOME volunteers,
just because I can provide the future, TODAY, and apparantly feel that
I am SCUM because of this lack of ability.

(Can you take a hint?)

michaelkjohnson

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

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