Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?]

[Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu>]

Gary R Van Sickle writes:
 > Ok, so install IE then.  Or get a newer version of Windows.  Problem solved,
 > no?
 > 

When I hit my thumb with a hammer I can get some aspirin, put a
bandage on it, and later get plastic surgery to make the thumb look
like a human thumb again. Or I avoid hitting my thumb with a hammer.

The solution is not to buy a new Windows or to use IE, but to use
Cygwin TeX or fpTeX instead.

 > Or hey, better yet, install a 'real OS' like Linux that you'll *never* have
 > to update!  Never did quite understand how exactly that worked....
 > 

Tell me about it. I run Debian at home. I'd run Debian right here if
my IT people would support this.

 > > (Please excuse my rants about MiKTeX. IMHO it is bad software design
 > > to couple a widely ported software like TeX to the Windows/IE update
 > > spiral by means of the installation software. The Cygwin and fpTeX
 > > installers show that this is not necessary)
 > 
 > Neither work on Windows 3.1.  Or DOS.  I don't see how that then qualifies
 > as 'bad software design'.
 > 

Cygwin claims proudly on its homepage that it runs on every Win32
version except WinCE. This is good software design because it will
install on the very Windows box that you happen to have.

MikTeX is lousy software design because it hides TeX, which would also
run on any Win32 version (except maybe WinCE), behind an installer
that needs software components available only in a part of all Win32
installations. It is especially lousy because there is no technical
reason to do so. The MiKTeX installer does *nothing* that the fpTeX
installer or Cygwin setup.exe couldn't do. And the latter work with
every Win32 version (except WinCE, of course).

 > Don't get me wrong Markus, I'm a far cry from Bill's biggest fan, and I'm
 > (trying to) use Cygwin's teTeX myself, but I don't think you're thinking is
 > entirely clear here.  You're using Cygwin right?  Hence Windows?  Hence
 > you've chosen to get on that "Windows/IE update spiral"?  I don't
 > understand; you'd prefer that Windows was the same now as it was in 1995?
 > Why not the same as it was in the even-worse-old-days of 3.1?  Or 3.0?  Or
 > 2.0?  Or DOS?  Time marches on, and not just in Windows-land: what was Linux
 > looking like back in '95?  Will a '95-vintage Linux installation build and
 > run teTeX?
 > 

My perspective may be skewed, but I work in a department of
approx. 100 people in Medical School, UT Houston. We have as many
computers, with maybe 10 Macs, leaving 90 Windows boxes. Approx. 70 of
these run WinNT, 10 or so Win95. Only those that were bought more or
less recently run Win2000 or XP. Our IT department is not supposed to
update our boxes just because Windows is so much fancier these
days. As long as we can punch in our data, these boxes will run
WinNT. And due to tons of virus problems with IE, the default browser
is still Netscape 4.7. You have to keep conservative environments like
these in mind when you tell everyone how easy it is to just buy a new
Windows and pull a new IE every other month.

 > Jeez, now you got me ranting ;-).  Sorry folks.
 > 
Has to be once in a while.

regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Hoenicka, PhD
UT Houston Medical School
Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology
6431 Fannin MSB4.114
Houston, TX 77030
(713) 500-6313, -7477
(713) 500-7444 (fax)
Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/