On 19/10/2005, at 3:18 PM, Clarke Echols wrote:
The problem is that these engineers don't have managers with
sense enough to lean on them to learn to use better tools to
get more done in less time. By learning to use the tools, and
nothing more complicated than simple shell scripts (I don't
ha
Miklos Somogyi wrote:
> On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
> The vast majority could put up with frequent crashes, with long
> printing times
> of very simple documents, with the fact that things did not really
> looked like they should have,
> that they had to do repeat jobs one-
On 19/10/2005, at 7:19 AM, Meg McRoberts wrote:
Older engineers know (or once knew) some *roff... Not so much
the younger ones. A whole generation went through college without
learning much of anything about Unix/Linux, sadly. I work with
a lot of fairly decent engineers who don't really un
Larry, I say Amen to your dream. Until then I am looking for a wireless
keyboard with
lots of special keys, that are all mine, and enough space around them
to put my notes
there, that would do the same: insert markups etc into the file :-)
Miklos
On 19/10/2005, at 7:41 AM, Larry McVoy wrote
Bernd, thank you very much for the idea. I'll try when I'll have X
windows.
I would like to install Tiger and the the whole X environment on my
Mac, but
I wait until I am sure that Tiger and "terminal" can co-exist.
I do a lot of graphics in standalone PostScript, so I'll need a good
generic
>In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses
>the `--enable-sgr' option, [...]
Keith, maybe you've sent this as a private mail to David (who has
replied accidentally to the list)? It looks interesting, so I ask you
to send the full text to the list.
Werner
___
Miklos Somogyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.10.05 13:59:35:
>
> You will also need a PS viewer. Others here will be in better position
> to give you some idea what to
> look for. Ghostscript is good to have, at least for converting your PS
> to PDF if you wish to share your
> creation wit
On 10/18/05, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > I knew making SGR the default would bite back with a vengeance
[snip]
>
> I still think it was the right choice inspite of all warnings. On the
> other hand, most documentation systems seem to prefer HTML today
> (which isn't my personal favourite), so it d
Meg McRoberts wrote:
>
> > You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they
> > write man pages.
My first encounter with troff was in 1985 when I was assigned
the task of the HP-UX reference for HP-UX 5.0. The project was
taken over by HP-Cupertino staff in 1986, then I
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:18:36PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I
> > lament the day groff goes gui. However, I think that a seperate gui
> > frontend is not a bad idea.
>
> Hmm, on today's computer everything is so fast that
> You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they
> write man pages.
Older engineers know (or once knew) some *roff... Not so much
the younger ones. A whole generation went through college without
learning much of anything about Unix/Linux, sadly. I work with
a lot of f
> The power of groff, as a typesetting program, is in its speed and
> scaleability. It quite happily gobbles up a 7GB '.trf' file
> producing 900,000+ pages of coloured postscript in under 4 hours
> (always impresses me!!).
Whew! Impressive indeed. Can you give more details?
Werner
_
> I knew making SGR the default would bite back with a vengeance
> sooner or later; it was later alright. My mind is at ease on this
> matter, I kicked and screamed when it was proper to do so and no one
> listened :-). Check the mailing list archives for the historical
> records.
I still think
> > And there seems to be a good groff mode for vim. Unfortunately,
> > the groff mode for emacs is rather bad AFAIK...
> >
> >
> Yet roff (1) reads "The best program for editing a roff document is
> Emacs (or Xemacs)"...!
This is related to the general editing capabilities of Emacs which are
sup
> Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable. I
> lament the day groff goes gui. However, I think that a seperate gui
> frontend is not a bad idea.
Hmm, on today's computer everything is so fast that the
editor->groff->ps->ghostview cycle can be run amost constantly in the
ba
> The first thing that comes to mind is that there is text before
> the DTD. This kills compliance support for IE, if not some other
> browsers.
Aah, yes, grohtml doesn't produce fully valid HTML. I assume that
Gaius is overloaded with work since he mentioned a longer time ago
that he is going
> > Be warned that I need a copyright assignment (from those who
> > haven't assigned one already) in case the added code is longer
> > than around 15 lines.
>
> As far as formal copyright is concerned, I'm not sure of the
> implications.
You don't have to worry since you've already signed a cop
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:30:06PM -0700, Meg McRoberts wrote:
> Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff...
> And young engineers
> don't know how to roff any more than the salespeople do ;-(
You can teach them, and a lot more of them know it than you think, they
write man pages.
--
I don't know if the offers to see naked pictures of Ted's
wife and such actually went through the mailing list --
they just came with the spoofed sender stuff... Come to
think of it, it's been a while since we've had any problems,
hasn't it? Hopefully that's all in the past...
We all know that t
> > I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all
> > references to dead features/programs should be removed, and the
> > new groff features should be incorporated as extensions.
>
> Yes, I know we talked about that... It's just a question of time.
> There's a small number of you who
Sadly, I fear that it's too late to really save groff...
But the advantage of a GUI is that casual users could use
the GUI and the rest of us could use real groff. It's
hard to justify doc tools that are fairly complicated
to use and known by very few these days...
I spend my days writing large,
> Side note -- Warren's mail went to my Bulk mailbox. Now why did
> this get flagged when they miss the pornography that so often
> arrives on this list? Sigh.
Are you sure about that? Have you really received such a mail via the
groff list? Looking into the groff mailing list archive, I don'
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 08:49:50PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
>
> I am not persuaded a gui would improve groff adoption (has LyX helped
> LaTex?).
Even if such a GUI were available, who would use it? As Deri
says, LyX is available for LaTeX, and LaTeX probably does a
better job at typesetting tha
On Tuesday 18 Oct 2005 12:44, D. E. Evans wrote:
>
> >We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone had
> > done a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more viable for
> > the masses. Sigh.
> >
> Like all UNIX tools, the specialized ones are the most viable.
On 10/18/05, Robert Goulding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >
> > And there seems to be a good groff mode for vim. Unfortunately, the
> > groff mode for emacs is rather bad AFAIK...
As I am the present foster father of that vim mode, I can ates
On 10/18/05, D. E. Evans wrote:
> Before adding a note to the PROBLEMS file, does anyone know of
> other platforms that would require a reconfiguration of man?
> SunOS? OpenServer? The other BSDs?
Basically, every Unix with a "more" that cannot manage ANSI escapes
(most more programs, particular
On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
And there seems to be a good groff mode for vim. Unfortunately, the
groff mode for emacs is rather bad AFAIK...
Yet roff (1) reads "The best program for editing a roff document is
Emacs (or Xemacs)"...!
Robert.
___
Before adding a note to the PROBLEMS file, does anyone know of
other platforms that would require a reconfiguration of man?
SunOS? OpenServer? The other BSDs?
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
In the case of SGR sequences, unless the user specifically uses the
`--enable-sgr' option, `configure' will attempt to run the specified
`nroff' command, to format a minimal manpage, and `grep' the output for
an identifiable SGR sequence, before adding the `-c' option to the
configur
> I'm not completely happy with the markup that groff puts out for
> this purpose.
Details, please. Maybe it can improved easily.
The first thing that comes to mind is that there is text before
the DTD. This kills compliance support for IE, if not some other
browsers.
I'll provide a m
This makes sense. So how many official developers does groff have?
4, plus Werner. I don't know how active the others are.
>It would be nice to provide some sample scripts, or perhaps
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.
I realized after I posted this that it sounded like
Maybe this tool should not be incorporated into groff
but done separately... XMetal and the like aren't part
of XML... I think I like the idea of groff remaining
"pure" anyhow, and it might spare us some bureaucratic
headaches.
Theoretically, one could develop the front-end as a commercial
produ
On 18-Oct-05 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone
>> had done a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more
>> viable for the masses. Sigh.
>
> Well, Larry and Ted showed scripts which can do that. We should
> probably add such
> I really would like to see the UTP improved, this is, all references
> to dead features/programs should be removed, and the new groff
> features should be incorporated as extensions.
Yes, I know we talked about that... It's just a question of time.
There's a small number of you who really know
> We had a discussion on this list a few months ago, that if anyone
> had done a WYSIWYG front-end for groff years ago, it would be more
> viable for the masses. Sigh.
Well, Larry and Ted showed scripts which can do that. We should
probably add such a thing to groff. Volunteers to prepare a pa
35 matches
Mail list logo
