Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
My opinion has not changed: you're just going to have to deal with 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?
Something like that, yes - from re****ts that I have heard. Yes, really.
Even when still in a pram, I apparently didn't take kindly to baby talk
and things like that, showing a marked tendency to look at adults as if
they were - or so I am told.
> > > 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?
Curious that anyone should hate history.
> > > > [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?
<deep puzzlement> A big ftp site is how to make the data available.
Et voila:
<ftp://ftp.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive>
But a big ftp site is not a software installer - the ftp site may hold
the installers for download, but an ftp site isn't a software installer
so your question makes no sense.
btw, the big ftp archive approach is why they were so happy when the Web
was invented.
But the CTAN ftp archive and the Web interface to it have always
contained complete TeX system installers (since CTAN's creation, that is
- CTAN came after the Aston TeX archive and a long time after TeX's
creation).
I really haven't a clue what you're on about. An ftp site is how to
make your installer available; an ftp site isn't a software installer in
itself.
> > 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.
Yes, if that's the view you have of MacTeX, you would be puzzled.
If you were to read the readmes that explain what's supplied, you would
understand better and so not be puzzled.
I shall not attempt to explain since I have learnt that you prefer to
reject my explanations without making any attempt to understand them on
the whole, and this one would take a lot of effort.
> > > >> > 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
So what?
> but yes, I get the point, the
> binary is always small.
<rolls eyes> I checked the PPC binary because it was the obvious one
that I could find. So I didn't check the Intel version - so what?
The fact that I'm talking about something not absolutely identical to
what you see has nothing whatever to do with the matter.
> > 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?
As any reasonable person could tell from what I wrote above, I am /of
course/ not making that rather general claim.
The point of the MacTeX installer is to install everything that is
likely to be found useful by more than a handful of people.
That means it's meant to install lots of stuff that any single given
user will have no interest in at all.
The reason it takes that approach is that the days of needed to whittle
down the data so that you could download it in a reasonable time are
gone, as are the days when you needed to whittle down the data so that
it'd fit on your hard disc drive.
It's no bother for the average user to download MacTeX - you're unusual
in complaining about it. MacTeX's just the efficient way of doing it.
The point here is that MacTeX does it the `efficient from the point of
view of the human' way, and you seem to be arguing that you'd rather
have *LOTS* of human time wasted to save a bit of disc load and a few
download minutes (which are irrelevant since they are purely machine
time).
And it does take a lot of time to download and bolt on each extra goodie
you want with TeX. In some cases, you have to configure the stuff too.
It's a *LOT* more efficient to download a complete installer that gives
you everything, pre-configured to a defined operational spec.
When I say `a lot more efficient', put emphasis on the `a lot'.
> Even though earlier you said it had image magik?
Which is directly useful to the applications that many people use LaTeX
for, yes: that's an excellent example of a non-TeX component that has
direct uses for many TeX users.
I don't understand your obsession with Image Magick (or however they
spell it). Image Magick is useful for you whatever, yes?
You find it useful even without TeX being installed, so why keep on
about it? I don't get it at all. You're objecting to an installer
because it's got software on it that you find useful? Huh?
Are you mad, or what?
> > 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.
<puzzled> The point of Beamer is to let you do the jobs that PowerPoint
is meant to do with minimal effort and without using PowerPoint
(obviously). If you do not need to do the sort of jobs that Beamer is
designed to do, then it's useless - obviously. Otherwise, it's useful -
obviously.
(You seem to be objecting to the fact that Beamer exists because it's
not something that you personally have a use for. Well, Woody, I've got
news for you: things that you personally have no use for are often very
useful for - wait for it! - other human beings who have different needs
to you. Can you get your head round that, Woody? Not everyone is the
same as you! Blimey, bit of a shock to the system, eh? How about you
sit down with a cuppa until it sinks in properly?)
Anyway:
The same applies to all LaTeX cl***** and packages - either you have a
use for one of them, or you don't. If you do, it's useful; if not, it's
not. With LaTeX (and TeX generally, although terminology varies) it's
best to have the full set of distributable cl***** and packages
installed by default so that you don't have to install one if you happen
to need it.
I just picked Beamer as a random example of modern LaTeX flashness - and
Beamer is capable of very flashy modern effects very easily.
It is bad to have to go to CTAN and download each useful component
separately.
It is best to have a TeX installer install `the whole damned lot' if
practical.
You seem to be complaining that MacTeX installs what TeX users find
useful. You don't even seem to understand what TeX is for, so why are
you offering opinions? If you were a TeX user, then you'd be in a
position to comment - but you don't even seem to understand how to use
TeX or what to use it for.
> So that isn't much good to me
<shrug> So what? Pick another of the tens of thousands of cl***** and
packages etc until you find one that is.
> > 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.
Argh. Yes, I know. The point is that there are tens of thousands of
cl***** and packages and other assorted bolt-ons available for TeX that
let you do things that someone with a naive understanding of TeX - i.e.,
you - would not think /could/ be done.
I did this not to give you an example of something useful, but to give
you an idea of how flexible things are so you would understand that TeX
lets people do a much wider range of things than you currently can
imagine.
Many of these things are silly. Almost all of them are brutally
practically useful.
Unfortunately, for some reason, you failed to understand that I was
trying to open your eyes to a world of richer understanding. A shame,
but there you go.
> > 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,
It's a very sensible use for TeX if you think about it in full context -
if you think it's odd, that's only because you don't understand what TeX
is for and how people integrate it into their workflows in order to save
time and effort in producing output of the highest possible quality.
> > 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).
When installed with all sup****t files and all founts and so on?
I don't believe you.
In any case, 700MB is not `small'.
TeX is tiny as you know - /much/ smaller than InDesign. TeX
distributions only take up space because of the sup****t files that are
provided.
The current version of OzTeX, which is a basic TeX distribution for
Macs, is 13.2MB to download.
<http://www.trevorrow.com/download/index.html>
That's quite big compared to early microcomputer versions of TeX - I
once met a version that fitted on two old-fa****oned 5.25" floppies. A
tiny TeX of that sort could be produced these days, but I doubt anyone's
bothered to do so *because no-one wants it*.
(although that came with no rendered founts - for best quality output,
one uses dvi files, and Metafont to render vector founts into
printer-optimized bitmaps: where Metafont versions of a fount exist,
this gives higher quality results on medium to low res printers than
PostScript and TrueType rendering but naturally there is no distinction
at high resolution between any of the technologies. These `pk' files
add up to chewing up a lot of space on 1980s HDDs.)
The current TeXLive distro, the full-on heavy duty `this is everything
we've got for Unix' distro, has been too big for a CD for some years.
You don't seem to want to try to understand what's going on here.
> 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.
You made a big thing out of it - you made a huge complaint about that
point. So I shot down your point using big guns because of the hugely
big noisy complaint you had been making out of what I considered an
irrelevancy.
And now I've responded to your hugely big noisy complaint in a fa****on
that shoots down your ideas, you decide to change tack to a personal
attack on me - again.
You're a deeply dishonest debater, aren't you?
> > > 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.
But you are blatently lying for ****'s sake you lying ****ing tosser.
btw, just how far up do you want me to crank the offensive rudeness
level? I don't have an upper limit on that kind of thing.
Observed fact that you cannot reasonably deny:
If you didn't want Image Magick, you would not have installed it.
Observed fact that you cannot reasonably deny:
You /THEN/ claim that you didn't want Image Magick because you already
had it - huh?
How can you expect anyone to believe something that's as obviously
untrue as that?
I'm just not that stupid and I'm amazed that you thought I was - surely
I couldn't have given you the idea that I'd miss blatant dishonesty on
your part like that?
> > 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?
Am I conversing with someone who's had his brain amputated, or what?
If you don't want it, you don't install it. You installed it -
therefore, you want it.
Therefore, your claims that you do not want Image Magick are proven to
be utter bull**** by your own words.
1 + 1 = 2. Or maybe as easy as 1 + 0 = 1.
There can be no problem with having Image Magick if you want Image
Magick, surely?
> > Downloading it again is hardly a problem, surely?
>
> Hardly either a problem or necessary.
So not worth mentioning at all, correct?
Given that it's not a problem to download, the best way of dealing with
the problem of duplicate data is to let it be duplicated.
And yet you complain about the fact that the MacTeX people have decided
to use the best available method.
What's wrong with you?
> > 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.
<rolls eyes> If I weren't cracked and therefore incapable of extended
effort in sup****t of a single goal, I could do the job fairly easily.
I don't think you understand about the logical organisation of CTAN and
TeX distros that makes it pretty easy to dig in and find out what's what
in a `catalogue the whole damned lot' fa****on if you really want to.
But while the method is easy, it's a big job 'cos there's a lot of it.
However, one of your complaints about MacTeX seems to be that it's full
of stuff that you personally have no immediate use for. I just can't
get my head round you at all on this one.
> > The single big installer is unquestionably better in all respects as
far
> > as I'm concerned.
>
> ok, so then your happy.
<sigh> What is wrong with your brain?
Why can you not understand that I am not talking for myself here?
For myself - just me on my own - what would be optimum would be
something other than the MacTeX installer.
For the general TeX user, the MacTeX installer is nearly as good as it
can get.
Do you get that yet?
> > > > [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.
Yes, that's what I think when I see a download rate of about 300kb/s as
I do from Apple - anyone giving me that much speed from their servers
gets noted as `as fast as it gets, pretty much'.
[snip]
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >> > Idownload? t 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.
So back in the days when the fastest available modem was 33.6kbit/s,
that was too slow for almost everyone, yes?
Personally, I judge things on whether or not they let me get done the
things I consider reasonable to get done using that technology in a
fa****on I find reasonably acceptable. I don't expect the unreasonable
as you seem to be doing.
> > 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.
The point is:
Apple's servers are blindingly fast compared to some, despite you
seeming to think that the speeds I see are dog slow.
> > Get the idea yet?
>
> I do, you seem to be missing it.
But you are lying again! You explained that you'd missed my point
completely.
I don't get this - why do you keep on flatly lying in the most open and
blatent fa****on?
Oh, I give up. How can I hope to get anywhere with someone as dishonest
and hostile as you?
> > 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.
<shrug> Yes, well, I'm talking about a wider view of the universe than
`your personal downloading of data from the net with you personally
waiting for particular things to finish'.
If you were to open your mind a bit, you'd understand what I'm getting
at. But you won't. You keep your mind closed, you refuse to try to
understand my points, and you try to `beat' me in the `fight' with
blatant lies.
There are many aspects of `reality' that have variations covering a huge
range of magnitudes.
Once you get into the sort of area when you can expect variations of
`times or divide by a thousand billion' as a matter of course, a match
in magnitude so close that the two quantities are a factor of two apart
means that they are pretty much identical.
Download rates aren't quite in that category, but are you beginning to
understand that you have a very poor understanding of the universe?
> We will have to disagree about your definition of 'about the same'!
We don't have to do that at all.
> > > >> > >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.
The point is, sun****ne, that *it is in the general case*.
Just because you don't know how to judge things like this doesn't mean
you're right.
Think about it.
> > 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.
You made the assumption, and you were mistaken to do so - obviously.
And you refuse to accept the possibility of error on your part, which is
yet another cognitive mistake on your part.
> > > 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.
I don't see why you refuse to accept that your current ideas might
possibly be in error, but if you insist on being blinkered and stupid
there's nothing I can do about it.
> > > >> > > 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.
Not with an traditional plain text editor, there's not.
If you're talking about one of these modern fancy `it's really a WP but
it calls itself a text editor', you're talking about something other
than what I'm talking about and so your point is irrelevant.
[snip]
> > > > 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.
Digital Darkroom is what Photoshop was before they changed the name to
Photoshop.
Do you get my point yet?
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
|
