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

[Charles Wilson <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>]

Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> 
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
>  > http://lilypond.org/wiki/?TroubleshootingWindows).  We currently use
>  > and distribute MikTeX, because it works reliable, and right out of the
>  > box.
> 
> You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the
> latest Internet Explorer.

Are you saying MikTeX only works on WXP?  WRONG.  I've run MikTeX 2.1 on
W98, WNT, W2K (and have no reason to assume it won't work under WMe.) 
Now, I'm not arguing against tetex, but let's confine the arguments to
factual ones, not FUD.

Are you saying MikTeX only works with IE6.0?  Again, WRONG. I've used
MikTeX with IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5sp1, and 5.5sp2.  If you wish to keep your
IE4, then you can download the appropriate DLLs that enable the setup
engine separately -- details given at the MikTeX website.

Again, stick to facts, not FUD.

> 
>  >  But I'd much rather we could use tetex.  Using MikTeX from
>  > cygwin is `cygpath hell'.

I guess.  I've never had many problems.  I use MikTeX + cygwin + make
all the time, and rarely have to resort to cygpath (of course, I usually
build using only relative directories, so D:\\ vs. /cygdrive/d isn't
really an issue for me)

There are arguments in favor of tetex over MikTeX, but the "latest
Windows" or "latest IE" are not among them.

--Chuck

--
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/