Can anyone explain what the differences are between groff and TeX and
which, if either would be most suitable for producing a magazine?
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
> Can anyone explain what the differences are between groff and TeX
A nice comparison can be found here:
http://makingtexwork.sourceforge.net/mtw/ch01.html
> and which, if either would be most suitable for producing a
> magazine?
This is difficult to say. In case you use, say, three columns
Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This sounds extremely promising. I haven't had a look (yet), but if it works
> as
> advertised, it would be a great way to rescue documents from MS Word since
> OOo does a pretty good job of reading them (indeed, I've seen it do better
> than Word with
> and which, if either would be most suitable for producing a
> magazine?
This is difficult to say. In case you use, say, three columns a page,
I suggest TeX due to its better paragraph formatting capabilities. If
you need a plain-text output also, then roff is probably the better
John Poltorak wrote:
Can anyone explain what the differences are between groff and TeX and
which, if either would be most suitable for producing a magazine?
They're both typesetters that use plain text files with embedded
markup to produce output. Both use macro packages to avoid dealing
