Hi Jim, yes, the roff-troff-groff (sounds like barking?) story reminds me in some way to FreeDos. Compared to LaTex (or Tex), groff is so much leaner and easier. It is still well maintained and usable. It allows output to html, text, ps, pdf… and regarding typsetting hardly anything coming near, if one has the eye for it. The source file can easily be created by any DOS editor. The rendering can be done on *ux, Windwos or Mac.
Groff -MOM was a »nice try« for prose writing, but to have all those long instructions to type, feels counterproductive. if you would want to have a very beautiful typesetted novel or book, (better avoid images!) - and have some time to understand the inner workings of »-mom«, this might be the best rendering. You are right, Jim, the -me and -ms instructions are so handy and short that I don’t think -mom ever cought on. It is though really well documentated. So, new products aren’t better because they are new… We can observe that most dynamics are around »marketing« and about specialising (like using Indesgin ed.al. for typesetting). I already mentioned »Markdown« (or use ».fountain« for scripts with dialogues in it). This is easy to write on any editor (DOS!) and then render it on a »daily machine«. Obviously most of us have at least two computers, one for »daily life«, using linux, windows or MacOS, and another for fun or nostalgia or how you would call it. This gains even more momentum, when I go to work on my DOS itx to just focus on writing. It’s like a better typewriter for me because I can save the work and send it digitally. The bottom line here is that I set a »red line« for me what NOT to try with DOS. This red line defines for me a point, where a recent system would win. So if I use DOS, it has to be »bare metal« to get the essence of it: simplicity, speed, privacy. (printing, USB… now I understand are more like »can it be done?« for fun. If you have the time and knowledge.) -Thomas NB: The typwriter has really become obsolete, but mechanical typewriters at the moment sell beautifully. Aesthetics? Computer aesthetics (!?) are quite »different«… > On Mon,20210426- week17, at 23:45, Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:45 AM TK Chia <u1049321...@caramail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello Ralf, >> >>>> Still an excellent tool I consider TROFF, now GROFF, for Unix/Linux >>>> -which also exists for Windows, appeared in 1990 (Version 0.3.1) by >>>> James Clark) coming from “a text-formatting program called RUNOFF, >>>> which was written by Jerome H. Saltzer for MIT's CTSS operating system >>>> in the mid-1960s! >> >>> I wouldn't touch any of that stuff with a barge pole these days. Either >>> LibreOffice Writer already fits the bill, or I would much rather use a >>> tool like Scribus these days... >> >> troff (as groff) is still very much alive today, as far as I can tell. >> And the troff format is still the default source format for man pages on >> Linux. It is quite a good format for the job, if you ask me. >> > > I use a mix of different tools for my tech writing. I write for a few > places, mostly OpenSource.com and CloudSavvy IT. > > I use groff just often enough that I remember how to use groff. I > usually use the -me macro set. I tried to adapt to -mom but I think my > mind is still "geared" for -me macros. :-) > > I also write a lot of tech articles in raw HTML. I use HTML when I > can't get the formatting I want through other means. What I like about > using HTML5 is the semantic code, so the tags hold some meaning. This > is also a great addition for screen readers and other accessibility > tools, so the tools can help the user navigate and consume the > document. > > But for most of my tech writing, I use a word processor, and send the > output to my editor. I run Linux as my desktop, and I prefer > LibreOffice Writer. It's a great tool. > > When I need to generate something for print (like flyers or postcards > for my business, etc) I use Scribus. I find Scribus takes some time to > figure out, but it's still easy to figure out. The learning curve > isn't too steep. > > > That said, when I do any writing on DOS, I like to use a word > processor. I used several DOS word processors "back in the day." In > high school, I learned how to use WordPerfect, so I used WordPerfect > when I went to university. But the upgrade for WordPerfect was pretty > expensive (I think $300 for a student copy) so instead I switched to a > shareware word processor called Galaxy (I think $99). At a third of > the price, Galaxy had all the features I needed to write papers for > class. > > These days, my favorite DOS word processor is Microsoft Word for DOS. > Microsoft released a copy for free on their download.microsoft.com > website. It feels quite modern compared to today's word processors. > The key combinations that you just "assume" on today's word processors > work in Word for DOS. Ctrl-i for italics, ctrl-b for bold, etc. That > works well for me. > > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
