From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 9 13:48:45 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BD16A4D4 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:48:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from icantthinkofone@charter.net) Received: from mtai02.charter.net (mtai02.charter.net [209.225.8.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD4C13C4CC for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:48:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from icantthinkofone@charter.net) Received: from aa04.charter.net ([10.20.200.156]) by mtai02.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.03.00 201-2186-126-20070710) with ESMTP id <20071009134834.FALV28.mtai02.charter.net@aa04.charter.net> for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:48:34 -0400 Received: from robs-laptop.com ([71.85.241.27]) by aa04.charter.net with ESMTP id <20071009134833.LXLU1254.aa04.charter.net@robs-laptop.com> for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:48:33 -0400 Message-ID: <470B86B0.6070505@charter.net> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:48:32 -0500 From: icantthinkofone User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <1191897714.982.25.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> <470B802B.9000002@charter.net> In-Reply-To: <470B802B.9000002@charter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Chzlrs: 0 Subject: Re: wyswyg editors for tex (was re: replacement for openoffice) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:48:45 -0000 icantthinkofone wrote: > Frank Jahnke wrote: >>> From what little experience I have with PS and *roff the idea of >>> hacking inline embedded languages just for typesetting sounds stupid >>> beyond belief.... >> >> You have to learn one of the troff macro packages. -ms is the easiest, >> but I agree that a wysiwyg document processor is just easier for this >> purpose. I'm agnostic about this one, and use Abiword (which I have >> never had any issues compiling, and do install all of the plug-ins), >> TextMaker, OO.o, Word or WP. For this purpose it does not really matter >> much, and I have all installed, either natively or in a virtual machine. >> >> For technical or scientific writing, though, there is nothing that can >> replace TeX or troff unless you invest a lot of money into adjunct >> programs for Word. Even then you still wind up with an ugly document. >> Sometimes that does not matter (like business letters) but hey, I'm a >> perfectionist and want my documents to look good in addition to >> containing good information. >> >> FWIW, my "typical" scientific article has over 100 references (which >> change as the document is written), a lot of partial differential >> equations and their solutions, graphs, chemistry, tables, images (like >> photomicrographs), and so forth. For that troff and TeX are the only >> way to go unless you want to spend a considerable amount of money for >> Word add-ins. By itself Word is not that good, but an ecosystem has >> developed around it to make it workable. And it is the standard. >> >> I'll stand by my basic recommendation. For everyday use and Word >> compatibility, buy TextMaker (and PlanMaker if you use spreadsheets). >> For the heavy lifting use TeX (or LaTeX or LyX) or troff and its >> pre-processors and macro packages. >> >> >>> and since all the more "traditional" (sorry I do not think of any >>> inline text language as being "traditional") >>> >> >> Here you are misguided. The text formatters *are* the traditional way >> to process documents. In fact, Unix existed only because its commercial >> justification was the text processing system. And that was built on >> DEC's runoff (with its embedded codes), which the Unix fellows >> abbreviated to roff, which became nroff for fixed-width character >> devices, and troff for typesetters. >> >> It took WordStar to change that paradigm (there are many other ones, of >> course, but WS was the gorilla in the late 1970s and early 1980s). >> >> Frank >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> > Can you explain the difference between troff and groff. I thought > groff is the more useable troff, or do I have that backwards, or is > that only a fbsd replacement? > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > And another thing, how do you choose whether to use TeX or troff? What's the diff?