[geeks] Re: [rescue] Re: nuking M$ from orbit

[David Cantrell]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, August 31, 2001 at 22:01:07 (+0100), David Cantrell wrote: ]
> > I rather liked the Word Perfect way of doing things.  Even in the GUI
> > versions, you could, as well as the usual WYSIWYG, split the screen into
> > two, one being plain fixed-width text with formatting codes visible, the
> > other being a WYSIWYG rendition of the section you were working on.
> The fact that's often even necessary in WordPerfect is a MAJOR MAJOR
> MAJOR design flaw!

Of course.  But that particular use of the feature does not make the
feature an object of purest evil.

> > When I'm TeXing, I really miss that.
> Miss what?  You mean the what-you-see-is-not-often-even-close-to-what-
> you'll-get-on-paper screen?  Why?

You know perfectly well that that's not what I mean :-)

I refer, of course, to being able to see both the structure of the
document (the TeX markup) and the pretty-printed version of the same
thing.  Very helpful when - for example - embedding a table in a
document.  I, unlike perhaps yourself, have yet to attain my black
belt in TeX-wrangling, and I really would like to see that it is
doing what I expect it to do.

> Are you using an X11 screen at those times?

Well seeing that I'm talking about some kind of graphical output - sure.

>                                              Don't you know how to set
> up something like xdvi or gv to show you the formatted output?

Yes.  But that doesn't update the display as I update the document, and
it won't go straight to the right part of the right page when I'm editing
working the fifth paragraph of sub-section 3 of section 5 of chapter 9
of my magnum opus.

> >                                And Lyx, whilst I like it, isn't mature
> > enough for full-time use.  The table rendering, in particular, is a bit
> > crap.
> 
> A WYSIWYG "word processor" is just a crutch in any case -- the fact
> they're broken or ill-fitting is simply a hint that you shouldn't be
> using them for anything more complex than they are capable of in the
> first place. Learn to walk on your own two legs and you'll be much
> happier! ;-)

I would take offence at that if it weren't for the smiley.

> > Pity their Windows product was such a steaming pile of dung in other
> > areas.
> 
> Don't use Winblows -- don't use any M$ crap!  That way you can't
> complain about how crappy even the 3rd-party software that "runs" on it
> is too!

Oh dear.  When did I say that I used it?  It is because their Windows
product was so crap that they are no longer producing any non-Windows
product either.  You never know, if they'd survived they might have
fixed the problems you mention earlier.  Although I doubt it tbh.

-- 
David Cantrell | david at cantrell.org.uk | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

    This is a signature.  There are many like it but this one is mine.