From: philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough)
Subject: Re: Losing One's Virginity (was TeX and PS fonts)
Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:38:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.183329.11123@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> tlm@nextasy (Tom Marchioro) writes:

[ ]
>
>I don't think this trivially easy step will resolved Prof. McDunnough's 
>complaints, he wants the use of postscript fonts to be as "easy" as it is
>with Textures, which use only postscript fonts.  For the record, using
>postscript fonts with NeXT-TeX is absolutely straightforward, just one
>line in LaTeX, and in plain TeX you can write a Macro like that given 
>in the TeXbook which, once written, again makes the use of the PS fonts
>a one liner. The PS fonts are the *only* ones I use because I don't like
>the CM ones, and I have E-mailed McDunnough on a couple of occasions 
>offering to help him with this and not gotten any reply.  I wish he
>would take me up on it because it might cut down on his EXCESSIVE WHINING
>in this newsgroup ---- I'm sorry, in my time on the net I've 
>avoided flaming anyone but I JUST CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE!  So I'm going
>to "lose my virginity" on this issue.  

I have not received any e-mail from you to the best of my knowledge, nor
would I really care to at this point. If you can't stand my messages just
don't read them. For your information my "whining" has been related to
issues which many other people are concerned with. The TeX thing was inside
another message and was related to NeXT's direction. I'm not sure why you 
have taken up the mantle of NeXT TeX defendar. I have simply indicated that
I saw the new version of Textures and liked the continuous previewing as
well as the ease of setup. I am not the first to say this. There was a thread
about a year ago just on this involving people who do know both TeX's well.
You might find setting up NeXT TeX in a nonstandard way easy. I don't. I'm
the type that wants automatic setup/installation. I don't particularly care
for Unix and I'd rather not have to insert this here,etc...Nor do I want to
hunt all over the place for software.
>
>In yet another fit of kvetching McD. wrote 

Get a grip on youself. If you want to trade insults worldwide we aren't    
going to do anyone a favour.
>
>>In article <1992Apr9.174420.15689@cs.yale.edu> 
>>>nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>>>
>>>X-Windows can be had *free* (public domain versions), or
>>>with commercial support from Pencom (and others) for $249.
>
>>The free version is not supported and isn't as nice as either Pencom's or
>>the Mac's one.
>>>
>>>We have had no "set up" problems with TeX on the NeXT, and
>>>I haven't seen many flamefests about it in these newsgroups.
>>
>>I indicated using Postscript fonts with NeXT TeX is not as easy as
>>using them with Textures. NeXT TeX is very nice. Nevertheless I do
>>know many people who are TeX "fiends" who would argue that Textures
>>is the better product. I'm no TeX expert but setting up TeX on the
>>Mac is trivial. Moreover it does continuous previewing.
>
>
>Now this to my mind is the height of pissantry since it comes from 
>someone who has repeatedly WHINED about the high cost of software.  Why
>does it cost so much?  Among other reasons because it's supported.  He then
>turns around and talks about how great TeXtures is vs. NeXT-TeX without
>mentioning the relative costs.  How much is TeXtures now Phil?  Last I
>checked the fonts alone were $195, and, just as a data point, 
>this TeX fiend checked out both packages and found NeXT-TeX clearly
>better in all senses, and FREE with the machine to boot. The continuous
>previewing in Lightning Textures is nice, but only for documents which
>are not difficult to typeset, ie <4-5 pages and with not too many 
>equations and no tables or matrices. But if that's the case why are
>you using TeX in the first place?

What is this with you and Textures? I simply pointed out something nice
about it. As far as its cost, I have no idea. The educational price varies.
However the figure $200 rings a bell( without the fonts).

You are wrong with respect to your 4-5 pages and continuous previewing. What
can I say? I've seen it on a long mathematical article and it was fine. The
article was full of equations.

I have always said that NeXT TeX was nice. The fact that it is bundled with 
the NeXT is a moot point. It isn't bundled with the Amiga( and the Amiga
version is as good if not better) and costs $300US.

Would you be more specific re my "whining" about the high cost of software?
As I recall the issue of cost arose particularly with respect to software
prices for students. Perhaps you'd better take a valium and come down from
the mountain.
>
>All of this is really just one drop in my ocean of discontent with 
>McDunnough.  He constantly writes about how "the Mac is better at
>X, the PC is better, this software is easier than that" but always 
>finishes by saying " like the NeXT best."  Well thank god for that!
>How much would we have to put up with if you didn't like it best?
>Is this a lifestyle kind of thing?  Does he go home to his wife in the
>evening and say "well my secretary has bigger breasts, and my grad
>student has nicer hair, and our neighbor is funnier, but I like
>you best"?  --- drat, keyboard is wet from dripping sarcams :-)

Ok, you've gone too far this time. I would suggest you not bringing in
my family into all of this. As far as I'm concerned, you're coming across
as a real twit.     

I do not constantly write that the Mac is better at whatever,etc...I'd 
suggest you learn how to read.
>
>What bugs me about all of this is that I cannot remember
>the last time he wrote anything in this group even vaguely helpful to
>someone, pointing them to an archive or offering a tip on using software,
>say.  There are several "you know whos" on this group who can be 
>quite obnoxious and engage in flame wars (guess I'll get to be in that
>club now :-) but who are also noteworthy for trying to give people a
>hand with technical problems, recommending software, etc.  The NeXT is
>hardly perfect --- it's a joke that after all of this time there are still
>no CAD packages or a page lay out app like Quark (neither of which I have use
>for myself, but both are reasonable measurements of a system's merits) 
>---  and many of the points he raises are valid, but this constant carping
>and comparing are neither *constructive*  nor informative ---  of course
>some things are better on the Mac and some things are better on a PC, and
>some on a Sun. Big deal, the Commodore 64 weighs less than the NeXT and
>the Sinclair was smaller, is that a reaon to buy either? ---- particularly
>when much of it is not of the form "you can't do this on a NeXT" but
>instead "gee, you have to learn something to do this on a NeXT."  Or have
>to pay for the software, or have to install it, or. . . . . 

Since your reading capability seems to be somewhat diminished, it's no wonder
that you haven't come across anything helpful that I have written. Many
others have. Just what constant "carping" are you referring to?
>
>From what has been written I feel enormous sympathy for anyone who has
>been snared by Neuron and I hope the new Supras (even cheaper than Neuron's
>*upgrade*) work beautifully under 3.0 (natch, I bought one :-) but 
>complaining that every little feature of a computer isn't superior to
>all other products, or that not everything you want to do is "plus and 
>play" is a waste of time and bandwith (like flames are really useful, oops!:-)

I have not complained about every little feature of the NeXT. I have most
certainly done that with respect to Neuron, as have many others. I also
objected to the dropping of the OD with little notice, as have many others.
And I have complained about the lack of information regarding the ND's
future, as have many others. But the thing which seems to have set you off is
that I made the simple statement that I found Textures to be nicer, at this
time, than NeXT TeX. I have no idea why you've suddenly lost it, nor do I
give a damn. Next time you wish to comment on somebody's messages don't
bring their families into it.  
>
>To conclude, a question:
>
>I use NewsGrazer on the NeXT and tin when I log in from home. Is it 
>possible to make a kill file to filter out articles by a "certain author"
>who I've grown weary of?

You should know. You seem to know everything else.
>
>Tom --- have to buy an asbestos suit now --- Marchioro
>
>PS:  The joke in all of this is that a local NeXT rep told me McDunnough has
>decided to buy two more stations.  Will his postings rise proportionally?

First of all, why don't you check on your facts before you post them all
over the place. I have no idea who would have told you this. You don't
work at the same place I do. You have no idea what I'm getting or not.
Nevertheless, just to set the record straight, you are totally wrong with
respect to my purchasing decisions. Should you wish to find out, just phone
our department. They will kindly tell you that I have one Cube and that's it.
I have not placed or requested an order for 2 stations.

Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu