Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-12-16:31
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 01:47:50 +0300

Topics:
	 minimal TeX printing package uploaded
	 Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-11-11:14
	 Re: incremental release
	 ASCii formats
	 Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-12-4:59 
	 ASCII vs. TeX
	 TeX previewer for VT100!!
	 how to help if you don't like TeX

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

From: [email-masked] (Nils Rennebarth)
Subject: minimal TeX printing package uploaded
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:49:50 +0300

O.K., there have been some people showing interest in a minimal package
to print TeX/LaTeX/Texinfo documents, so I made one and uploaded it
to sunsite. It is called texmin-0.1 and currently in /pub/Linux/Incoming
texmin-0.1.tar.z and texmin-0.1.README

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
            _    _   _       _  _        _  ___       Altenessener Str. 93
 |\ | | |  (    |_) |_ |\ | |_ |_)  /\  |_)  |  |_|   4300 Essen 12
 | \| | |_ _)   | \ |_ | \| |_ |_) /~~\ | \  |  | |   ++49 0201/328083

Internet: [email-masked]          BITNET: MEM070@de0hrz1

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael K Johnson)
Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-11-11:14
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:03:44 +0300

I'd like to say, for the record, that two different issues have been
confused here:  the ASCII issue and the releaseing the docs issue.

I have no more to say on the ASCII issue.

However, I'd like to say that I partially agree with Vince and Greg --
hard as it may be to find their opinions in their flames (and, to be
just, some of our flames have been hard to read through as well) -- I
think that some of our docs are ready for public BETA release.  Since
arl started this hidden directory stuff, I think we have taken it a
bit too seriously.  That's why the linux-doc directory at
ftp.stolaf.edu is not hidden, just unannounced, with a README
explaining things.

tsx-11, sunsite, and nic are all waiting for public docs, and I think
that we should be careful that it is not fear of releasing imperfect
documentation that is keeping us from public release.

In this case, we will have to modify our policy a little and say that
ASCII will come with the conjunction of public release and the new
release of lametex.  Is that agreeable?

Let's be willing to release BETA docs to the public.  I intend to do a
BETA release of the KHG in a few weeks, if I can get the device driver
chapter worked over.

I have also stated my intention from the beginning of the LPG idea to
release that incrementally, in BETA, from infancy.  I've been
collecting ideas for it, and will start working on it as soon as I get
the first KHG BETA out the door.

Can everyone live together with this?

michaelkjohnson

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

From: "Vincent D. Skahan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: incremental release
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:36:38 +0300

([email-masked] writes:)
> 
> I'd like to say, for the record, that two different issues have been
> confused here:  the ASCII issue and the releaseing the docs issue.
> 
> I have no more to say on the ASCII issue.

I agree that you are indeed doing what you said months ago you'd do.
I thought it was unwise then, I still do...but we're allowed to disagree.
No big deal.

> think that some of our docs are ready for public BETA release.  Since
> arl started this hidden directory stuff, I think we have taken it a
> bit too seriously.

My one intent was to get the fine stuff you have now out to the masses as
soon as possible.  What you have now is plenty good enough if you put a
disclaimer that it's a "living document" that will be finalized
real-soon-now.

Please begin incremental releases.  There is a great void in the amount of
public information that it will help fill in the interim until you get your
first final release. (which will never be really final anyway since Linux is
a very-moving target)

> In this case, we will have to modify our policy a little and say that
> ASCII will come with the conjunction of public release and the new
> release of lametex.  Is that agreeable?

works for me.

but in the interim you still need the 'how to do something with TeX documents' 
readme file :-)

My other intent was to help the TeX-impaired contribute and also gain
benefit from your work.  There really are people out there who want to help
that you're unaware of.  There are really people out there who don't use
TeX...who don't know how...  who don't want to know how...who still need the
incremental release information.  In fact, they might be the people who need
it most.

I'd still like to see a definitive description of what we're supposed to do
to make use of the stuff you're going to release in TeX format.

I think you owe it to the potential readership to give them the slightest
clue how to use the stuff you're incrementally releasing.

In all the flames, I think (think...) at least part of the question got
answered.  Are there any volunteers who want to put the asbestos boots on and
wade through the mess to find the value that is in there and the offers of
help people made ?  I'll volunteer as one, but since I was the one asking the
question, it'll need to be sanity-checked.

-- 
 ----------- Vince Skahan ------ [email-masked] -----------

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

From: Greg Naber <[email-masked]>
Subject: ASCii formats
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 19:03:37 +0300

Until such time as tools are available to convert the alpha-docs to ascii
formats, I will make packages available ascii versions using detex, a
small sed script, and a bit of manual editing.

These files are generally real rough formats, i.e. the tex macros do not
translate, there are numerous misssing items because of that.

Since I already have a few .private directory's made here for other
projects I am involved with, I just added another to the string.

You can get these at halcyon.com (192.135.191.2) in the directory
~pub/linux/fido/.private/.ALPHA-doc

As time allows, I will see what I can do to add the missing items from the
tex-macros manually, but in the present form, one does not need 5-25 megs
of programs to print - a cat {name} >/dev/lp{0,1,2} will suffice.

---
               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: [email-masked] (Michael K Johnson)
Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-4-12-4:59 
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 19:27:33 +0300

   I'm for a generous approach on the ASCII docs, if we can do
   it.  How much work would it take to preformat ASCII output 
   and store *.ASC documents?  Is storage space an issue?

Storage space is not an issue (Well, it is essentially not an issue,
and won't be unless we get **REAL REAL** busy, in which case we will
MAKE space ;-).  If you have SGML tools (LaTeX --> SGML --> ASCII
approximation) then that might be the best route to get ascii now.
This summer, Jonathan Monsarrat is re-writing his lametex package, and
will be extending it to provide the capabilities we need.  So we
should be able to provide ascii for everything (well, close) by the
end of the summer.

michaelkjohnson

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

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: ASCII vs. TeX
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 19:59:18 +0300

Folks,

This has gotten out of hand, as you can all see. I'd like to wrap
this thread up now. Any other responses should be directed to me in
personal e-mail.

I'm listening for possible solutions to the problems of ASCII vs. LaTeX,
but I'm not hearing any. All I hear are complaints, and requests to "stop
restricting the format of the docs". Please, be specific. I need specific
solutions to the problem, or we can't do anything about it. 

I understand that LaTeX is not everyone's ball game. But please try it out
before you flame us for using it. It IS standard, easy to use, and produces
really professional output. And it runs on everything, even Linux, even DOS.
I don't know what more you could ask for in a formatting system. Elephants
that juggle pink batons? (I'm sure Michael or one of the other TeX wizards
could figure that one out, given the time.)

Complaints that TeX/LaTeX is non-standard are bogus. Please go buy Leslie
Lamport's LaTeX book. 

I honestly want to accomodate everyone here: I'm not adamant about using
TeX, nor am I going to force anyone to use a certain format. Long ago we
decided that it would be easier if we all agreed on a standard: that standard
was LaTeX. Over and over we have said that folks can write in plain ASCII,
and we'll LaTeX it for you. Editing LaTeX is as easy as editing a text file
and flipping through the LaTeX book every now and then. I'm no LaTeX wizard,
but I've written a few hundred pages in it with success. 

I feel that those of you who are "scared off" by LaTeX wouldn't be after
reading through Lamport's book. It's very easy to use. Please try it out.

However, to accomodate everyone, I need constructive advice and suggestions.
Vince and Greg have only expressed their distaste for TeX, but haven't told
me how to solve the problem. Unless you can be specific, it's very difficult
to do anything. 

mdw

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

From: Olaf Kirch <[email-masked]>
Subject: TeX previewer for VT100!!
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:57:00 +0300

Folks,

After taking some days off, I got back on the net today and skimmed my
mail... well, I must say, I'm quite angry. Do we really deserve this
flaming and shouting (cf. esp. the early posts of this thread),
just because some of the ASCII people are puzzled by all those \control
commands? I understand that it takes time and a bit patience to install
TeX and probably Ghostview, but that's the way it is in Linux.
And if you don't want to do this - and, note, I don't blame you
for this - you either have to wait until someone finds the time
to put together a tool for Latex->{ASCII, texinfo, roff,...}
conversion, or you may ask for this _POLITELY_. 

For what it's worth, I'm going to `support' an ASCII version of
the net guide, as soon as someone's going to put up a converted
version of it to St. Olaf's. Support means: if you read the ASCII
doc, and want to send me your comments, I will accept diffs against
the ASCII version as well. This may mean more work for me, but
then, maybe my time isn't as valuable as yours :-/

So much for the flaming. I hope we can now finally bury this
topic for some months and proceed with work. Okay?

BTW, I have tried lametex and detex, and neither really satisfies
me. I've been giving some thought to writing a yacc parser
that turns Latex into texinfo, because it has all the structuring
commands that Latex has, too. Does anyone know if texinfo can do some
formatting on ascii output (i.e. alignment, etc)? I've never
written texinfo myself, so I don't know very much about its
ascii capabilities; but I faintly remember someone posting
an introduction to it a few months ago.

Olaf

--
Olaf Kirch      [email-masked], [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Karl Fogel)
Subject: how to help if you don't like TeX
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 22:40:35 +0300

	Arguments about whether TeX is standard or not aside (it is in
some circles, isn't in others), one thing that people who prefer ascii
could do is *convert* some of the TeX/LaTeX docs to ascii -- or better
yet, write a program to do it.  I understand that this is already
under way, but is not yet finished.  In the meantime, if you like a
doc but it is in TeX, why not get the source and convert it and make
it available in ascii?  

	I agree that ascii docs would be nice for those without
printers or the knowledge necessary to print dvi files -- but I'm
doing my work in LaTeX, because I still think it's better overall.  I
don't think any authors would object to someone converting their TeX
docs to ascii.  You don't need any TeXperience to do it -- the format
is fairly self-explanatory.  People who are writing in TeX are not
likely to change to ascii, nor should they be asked to: as Denise Tree
put it, policy decisions are made by those doing the work.  This goes
both ways, though: if you do the work of converting or writing
directly in ascii, no one will argue that your efforts are a waste or
try to change *your* policy.  

	Personally, I'd *love* to see all docs available in ascii as
well as TeX/LaTeX source and dvi.  No one will flame you if you take
action to realize that aim (well, I won't flame you, at least!  Can't
speak for the rest of the channel...)

Have a dice, nay?
-karl

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

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