On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 06:22:10PM -0500, Larry S. Marso wrote:
> (ii) Absolutely say "open source" -- and often. Also with the first
> reference to LaTeX.
>
> In fact, a press release announcing an advanced "open source" ... "word
> processor" ... "for Linux" ... has a good chance of making t
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 08:45:32AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Larry" == Larry S Marso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Larry> (i) "Document processor" is an utterly meaningless term.
>
> OK, let's give it a meaning. LyX is a document processor. If you
> process only words, you
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 08:45:32AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> Except for table improvments, everything that you mention here was
> already present in 0.12.0. This does not make sense.
Funny. More than half of the people I talk to who say "I tried LyX once
but don't use it" in fact t
> "Larry" == Larry S Marso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Larry> Reviewing the draft PR earlier this week, I felt it was weak,
Larry> pitched the wrong tune and would sail past most everyone
Larry> unfamiliar with LyX or at least LaTeX.
Larry> I was so concerned that I wrote a virtual alternati
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Larry S. Marso wrote:
> (i) "Document processor" is an utterly meaningless term. The universally
> accepted category name for software that edits words and yields formatted
> output is "word processor". LyX is not a "text editor". You might make
> an argument that "desktop
Reviewing the draft PR earlier this week, I felt it was weak, pitched
the wrong tune and would sail past most everyone unfamiliar with LyX or
at least LaTeX.
I was so concerned that I wrote a virtual alternative.
Seeing the latest redraft, frankly I think we've made very little
progress. I'll t
