Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Its a figure of speech. Get over it.
> (`Always' dating from the time when I was capable of understanding that
> sort of claim - yes, really.)
So it irritated you when you were what, 2 or 3 years old when you could
understand it?
> > 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.
What that I don't hate it any more?
> > > [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.
OK, and they couldn't do that with a big ftp site?
> Unless you are a TeX expert, it's much better in general just to use the
> standard big installer.
Fair enough. Just seemed a bit big for one little editor and a
processor.
> > >> > 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.
Well, I don't have a PPC working any more but yes, I get the point, the
binary is always small.
> 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.
So you are saying that everything in that download is directly useful?
Even though earlier you said it had image magik?
> 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).
No thanks. I manage to avoid powerpoint with quite a bit of effort, so I
really don't need to go looking for a replacement for it.
So that isn't much good to me
> 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).
umm.. ok, so that isn't much use either.
> 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.
Yes, some people do odd things,
> 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?
Indesign is actually quite small (certainly smaller than 700Mb). office
was probably larger, but I don't know how much word is on its own, as I
never downloaded that without the rest of office.
> 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.
Fair enough. It was only a comment, you don't need to make a big thing
out of it.
> > As you say, it has image magik. I didn't want that, as I already have
it.
>
> But you are lying again!
I am not lying for **** sake. Learn how to talk properly.
> 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!
Err, where is the problem there, or am I talking to the hard of
thinking? I don't want it because I already have it. Is there some
reason you think I should need it twice?
> Downloading it again is hardly a problem, surely?
Hardly either a problem or necessary.
> 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.
I neither think you could or would want you to.
> The single big installer is unquestionably better in all respects as far
> as I'm concerned.
ok, so then your happy.
> > > [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?
Ahh, ok.
> 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'.
Apart from their development sites (which are now much better), they are
very fast. i would expect about 500k/s
>
> > 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.
Generally speaking with big downloads in my observation, they don't get
faster. If they are going to change speed they get slower.
> > >> > > 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.
It doesn't matter if something is fast compared to something else, if it
is too slow for what you want though.
> Apple serves me files at about ten times the rate I get podcasts from
> the Beeb - if downloading shortly after initial broadcast.
<shrug> really don't see the relevance, sorry.
> Get the idea yet?
I do, you seem to be missing it.
> 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'.
Really no, it doesn't under any cir***stance. Half or double is never in
my experience 'about the same'. Maybe it is to you, but I can't think of
any cir***stance where it is to me.
We will have to disagree about your definition of '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.
ok, it is to you, it isn't to me.
>
> > 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.
I did assume that, and I was right.
> > 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.
I know that is your point, and I disagree. we will just have to leave it
at that.
> [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.
There is a lot of processing of text going on as you edit. Whether you
see it or not.
> [snip]
> > > 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.
fair enough.
> I used my chosen means of expressing myself because I think it's funny.
ok.
>
> > > 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.
I don't think I know digital darkroom. Was it an old thing? Sounds
familiar from somewhere.
--
Woody
www.alienrat.com
|
