Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
> >> > > > Not much correlation between `palace' and `moat'.
> >> > >
> >> > > No, I was thinking of castle.
> >> >
> >> > I've not met many castles with moats - at least, not with moats
> >> > containing water.
> >>
> >> I have been to castles with moats containing water, and castles that
> >> used to have water, although most moats were dry so you could shoot
> >> people in there.
> >> I spent most of my childhood being dragged from one castle to the
next.
> >> My dad was keen on the things.
> >
> > I was keen on them as a child and still am. Never saw many moats
> > containing water.
>
> I hated them with a passion when I was a child. Nothing worse than
having to
> go round another castle.
I've always found that kind of claim really, /really/ stupidly witlessly
moronically wrong and annoying.
(`Always' dating from the time when I was capable of understanding that
sort of claim - yes, really.)
So you'd rather have been dragged round another castle than had red hot
needles shoved under your fingernails? You reckon? Don't be a damned
fool.
(and yes, that was the usual example I had to hand when I was a young
child. Gowd knows where I picked up on details of torture like that,
but I'd met that sort of thing in fiction before I'd started high
school)
> Now I have no real feelings about them either way. I certainly don't
have
> the hatred for history I had when I was young.
Curious.
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > > > TeX isn't that big. That's a full TeX distribution. A basic
LaTeX
> >> > > > distribution - essentially, TeX with the minimum extras - can
be
> >> > > > put on
> >> > > > a handful of floppy discs (I think the smallest I've seen is
two
> >> > > > floppies).
> >> > >
> >> > > That isn't very clear on the website.
> >> >
> >> > <puzzled> Well, why should they explain that?
> >>
> >> Why shouldn't they?
> >
> > <very puzzled>
> >
> > Because there's no reason at all to do so?
>
> Well, why have a website if you are not going to explain anything, why
not
> just dump the files on an ftp server?
<shakes head in much deeper puzzlement>
1) The point of MacTeX is so that users can grab a complete TeX
distribution with a convenient Mac installer to install everything in
one go because that is what most users want and because that way, you
can actually get a properly working modern TeX installation.
If you'd ever tried to do it the other way, you'd appreciate the single
big installer approach.
2) There are *plenty* of explanations available via that Website /if you
really want them/, now I come to look:
E.g., <http://tug.org/mactex/morepackages.html>
<http://tug.org/mactex/whatgetsinstalledwhere.html>
3) If you want the files separately they are all available for separate
download at CTAN, but the point of MacTeX is to provide the user with a
single installer for everything, because that's what most users want.
I really don't have a clue what you think would be better than a single
big installer for the whole damned lot. If you want the bits
separately, then - well, there's the i-installer route that I for one
find impossible to use, and there's this:
<http://www.mac****ts.org/****ts.php?by=name&substr=TeX>.
Look here too:
<http://www.rna.nl/ii.html>
<http://latex.yauh.de/links_en.html>
<http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/>
<http://www.rna.nl/tex.html>
Explanations are out there, but most users just want to download the big
installer and slap it on. The explanations of the full details are
non-trivial. Most people don't want to bother with them. Most people
just want a big TeX distro installed for use.
If you want something else, then you need to learn about TeX until you
are expert, then put together your own custom TeX setup.
Unless you are a TeX expert, it's much better in general just to use the
standard big installer.
> >> > You're being offered a
> >> > full TeX distribution, because `that's what people want these
days'.
> >>
> >> Well, I didn't so that is obviously not the case.
> >
> > <surprised> No, when I wrote the above, I meant `people in general' -
> > not everyone, but most people.
> >
> > And while I'm at it: what *exactly* did you want, then? What
precisely
> > was it that you wanted removed from the TeX distribution that's on
> > offer?
>
> I had no idea, it didn't say what was in it, it just seemed very large
for
> something that just processed text.
Thinking of TeX as something that `just processes text' is a flawed
approach.
The basic typsetting engine is exactly 336,996 bytes as compiled for
PPC.
The rest of it is sup****t files to enable one to do things other than
just have access to the raw typesetting engine. You'll not get far
without a huge stash of fount sup****t files, unless you want to use
XeTeX only. But it's all dealt with for you by the installer. And you
complain because you'd rather have something smaller to download - makes
no sense to me.
I don't think you quite understand just how powerful and flexible TeX
is. Check out the Beamer class for doing slides (presentation type
slides - a PowerPoint replacement, sort of). Check out the Basic
interpreter written to run via TeX (or maybe not - that one's a bit of
silliness done simply because the programmer could).
TeX is used by some as a fully automated and `user invisible' back end
for typesetting XML and HTML for print. Some people use it to generate
HTML for use on the Web.
You won't find anything to match TeX's maths typesetting abilities
(InDesign is apparently just as good at typesetting ordinary text).
Also: how big is MS Word? Adobe InDesign? - not just the application
code, but the full package including /all/ sup****t files?
You'll find that TeX is a smaller application, but comes with more
sup****t files to enable it to be used for a wider range of jobs and with
more power given to the user with higher quality end results in a more
robust and longer-lasting fa****on.
TeX's tiny - but TeX distributions aren't small because of the huge
range of sup****t files for it.
> As you say, it has image magik. I didn't want that, as I already have
it.
But you are lying again! You tell me in one breath that you want
ImageMagick since you already have it, and then try to claim that you
don't want it!
Come on!!!!!
Downloading it again is hardly a problem, surely?
> I
> am sure there are other bits too.
Well, as I say, the basic typesetting engine at the heart of it is about
1/3 of a megabyte.
The LaTeX `Base' distribution is 1.4 MB unpacked (approx).
The folder containing all the LaTeX class and packages including the
`Base' distribution is 48.2 MB (approx) - that's the basic LaTeX
distribution *plus* various additional bolt-on goodies written by
various people over the decades. It's a lot more convenient to have
them all installed than have to download them as and when, one at a
time.
That's all the readily distributable and useful bolt-on extra class and
package files for LaTeX (and only LaTeX) - and they're installed by
default (including my own contributions to the TeX world: yes, really.
Check out sectsty, which is one I'm not very embarrassed about).
The hundreds of megabytes of other stuff is - well, hundreds of
megabytes of other stuff. You'd need to look at each bit to see what
you get - but there are formats other than LaTeX provided, various
non-TeX executables, and I really don't know what else.
Do you think I could give you a precise of what it all does? Of course
not! I don't know the half of it - but it's damned handy to have it
there if you're going to use TeX, so I've found.
<shrug> There are lots of manuals. There is a full CTAN catalogue.
There's all sorts of stuff that I don't know about.
I really don't see any problem with having it all in one big installer.
The earlier and lesser approach to installing a TeX system on Macs was
via Gerben's fully flexible i-installer.
I tried to use it and found that while it promised to give me the power
to install what I needed and configure it all the way I wanted, it was
in fact not possible for me to learn how to use it or find out what bits
I needed. And I'm pretty clued up on TeX, I am - and yet i-installer
was supposed to be suitable for TeX novices to use!
Now we have MacTeX, it turns out to be possible for me to have a modern
TeX installation which I found was impossible for me to arrange using
i-installer.
The single big installer is unquestionably better in all respects as far
as I'm concerned.
If you'd rather bang your head against i-installer, take a look at it.
url above and here: <http://www.rna.nl/ii.html>.
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > >It seems much more 'here is the
> >> > > download, it is 744Mb'.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that's right. What else? You get offered the standard full
> >> > distro
> >> > with a Mac installer.
> >> >
> >> > <shrug> I'm very puzzled.
> >> >
> >> > >Tried it anyway. It started downloading at
> >> > > 338k/s,
> >> >
> >> > Seems like about the data rate one would expect, too.
> >>
> >> Maybe you, not me. I expected faster than that. Why would I expect
> >> 338k/s?
> >
> > <very very puzzled> Just how fast do you think the server is? I
don't
> > expect to see a high data rate from any single server - and that's
about
> > the data rate I often see downloading from Apple.
>
> I don't understand what Apple have to do with it?
Well, I thought it'd be a useful yardstick to compare to. What, I
thought, can I expect to see by way of download rates?
I started out with no idea - and formed ideas based on what I saw from
various sites. Some sites have faster servers and faster links to me
than others. Apple seems to me to be a firm with a good set of servers
that work reliably and with a decent data rate - so what I see from
Apple, I assume is `about as fast as one could expect to see the data
turn up on the whole'.
> When I downloaded it later it came down much faster, so it seems it was
a
> reasonable thing to do.
Didn't seem `much faster' to my mind - and there's no reason to think
that you wouldn't have seen the faster speed had you just left it to
download.
> >> > > so I thought I would reboot the rooter, as it has been a bit
> >> > > slow recently.
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand this bit. Why didn't you just leave it to
download?
> >> > It would have turned up in less than an hour.
> >>
> >> Because it was on my laptop and I couldn't leave my laptop open for
an
> >> hour, so I thought if it was going to go slowly I needed to download
it
> >> on a desktop.
> >
> > Ah. You use a different definition of `slowly' to me.
>
> slowly (to me) is a pro****tion. If something can happen in 10 minutes,
but
> it is taking 30 minutes, then it is happening slowly.
> I needed to be able to shut my laptop within 15 minutes, so it was too
slow
> to be able to do that, so I had to do it in another way.
Yes, but 300 kB/s is a very fast speed compared to some download speeds
I see here&now with my broadband connection downloading from some
servers.
Apple serves me files at about ten times the rate I get podcasts from
the Beeb - if downloading shortly after initial broadcast.
Get the idea yet? With that kind of variation going around as a matter
of routine (and some files turn up even slower than that), half/double
counts as `about the same'.
> >> > >After that it wouldn't download anymore.
> >> > > I guess I will try it later.
> >> >
> >> > <http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/mac/mactex/MacTeX.dmg>
> >> >
> >> > is downloading here at - so far - an average data rate of 600+
kB/s.
> >>
> >> Yes, I downloaded it later at that speed. So I guess you must have
been
> >> suprised as you said you would expect around 338k/s
> >
> > <very puzzled again> No, 600+kB/s is around about 338kB/s as far as
> > handwaving regarding this sort of thing goes. Double or half the data
> > rate is `about the same'; ten times or a tenth isn't.
>
> double is 'about the same'? not in my world it isn't. 300-400 are about
the
> same.
It is if you're dealing with something that varies over such a wide
range as download speeds.
> My line is ok up to about 700kB/s, so if it is going at 600, that is
good,
> if it is going at 300 then that is slow.
> If that is all the other end is capable of then fair enough, but it
isn't,
> it was just my router or line slowing down.
You have no reason to assume that from what I can see.
> > The first modem I ever used was, erm, I think a 1200 baud job. Think
> > about it.
>
> I have thought about it, but what point are you trying to make?
> My first modem was slower than that, but it has no bearing on my
connection
> now.
> Or are you saying I should be happy that it downloaded in less than a
month?
No, I'm saying you should use proper perspective.
> I am truly happy that my network connections are faster than they were
20
> years ago, but it really has nothing to do whether my router is working
well
> now.
<pained> My point is that a 100% variation is speed ain't a lot when
considering a broadband connection, not with the way I see things
working here. If it's a tenth the expected pace, I'll be trying to sort
it out - but half expected speed? Well, `half expected' counts as `what
I expected' *for this kind of *****sment'.
Other things are *****sed a different way - if my motorcycle was
suddenly only capable of getting up to half its previous top speed (or
double, for that matter), I'd be seriously concerned (and in the case of
double top speed, probably just about to die - 290mph is not a sensible
speed on the public highway, or on any motorcycle at all as far as I'm
concerned).
[snip]
> >> > > I also have to have office anyway, so I am not saving anything.
> >> >
> >> > If no part of MS Office is running, you're saving CPU. You might
say
> >> > that doesn't matter - well, I find it an affront to my
sensibilities to
> >> > have an application idling but using CPU anyway.
> >> >
> >> > TeX doesn't idle. It runs, then stops.
> >>
> >> Obviously, it is a processor rather than an editor.
> >
> > MS Word processes as you edit.
>
> It does, like pretty well any editor.
Text editors don't process text as you edit - they just display the
data.
> >> > > > If you don't care about that, but want access to high quality
> >> > > > typesetting, you only have two choices: TeX (any flavour) and
> >> > > > InDesign -
> >> > > > those two are in the same league as each other, and nothing
else
> >> > > > available comes close. InDesign takes more space on disc,
takes
> >> > > > more
> >> > > > CPU, and costs infinitely more ('cos TeX's free).
> >> > >
> >> > > I have indesign as well, just not on this machine.
> >> >
> >> > Don't use anything else for your text output, then. TeX or
InDesign -
> >> > you've got access to the best of the best, so don't use the ****e.
> >>
> >> Depends on what you want your text output to be. Some of my text
output
> >> (and input) has to be in word format.
> >
> > Can't InDesign work with that format?
>
> no. Or at least not to a level I need, and I don't blame it for that, as
it
> is not a format I would chose to have anything to do with if I had the
> choice.
> Unfortunatley the only thing that deals with word format on the level I
need
> is word.
Bugger - okay.
[snip]
> >> > For the jobs I had, I always preferred Graphic Converter to
DeBabelizer
> >> > (which I think I have somewhere). What do you think DeBabelizer
was
> >> > better at? ISTR GKON being able to do stuff that DeBabelizer
couldn't
> >> > do at all.
> >>
> >> DeBabilizer had a few formats I used that graphic converter couldnt'
do.
> >> I don't remember what they were now, but I know that graphic
converter
> >> wouldn't do it. It also had more controlls over format and a few
other
> >> tools.
> >> It was also easier to use.
> >
> > I found Graphic Converter much easier to use than DeBabelizer (a much
> > more sensible and controllable approach, I found), and I found it gave
> > me more control over format and had a few tools that DeBabelizer
lacked.
> >
> > Graphic Converter could also handle a few formats that DeBabelizer
> > couldn't, from what I recall.
>
> err, ok, we are doing the copy and repeat game now are we?!
It's not a game - it turns out that the reasons you think DeBablizer was
better than Graphic Converter are in fact the reasons I think Graphic
Converter is better than DeBabelizer.
Really.
I used my chosen means of expressing myself because I think it's funny.
> > And in any case, DeBabelizer always felt a bit dodgy to me.
>
> DeBabelizer was possibly a bit more flakey than graphic converter, but
it
> was the only thing that did the job I needed it to do for a while, so
that
> is what I went for. Then I got photoshop 1.9, and that was great.
I've never much liked Photoshop when I've tried it. I can't say Digital
Darkroom impressed me either.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
|
