Re: Forget Windows
James W Dow schrieb: LyX is a wonderful word processor. It is best one for writing mathematics directly from the keyboard. Please don't spend a huge time developing it for Windows. Windows will gradually fade away. Putting nice programs like LyX on that operating system just delays people switching to a version of Linux, where they really should be. Feeding software to Windows just lets it grow profits for people who are doing nothing positive for the computing community. I use and try to spread the use of Lyx on Windows. My colleagues are likely to adopt it once 1.4 is out with working latex import. There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) Similar for me: I came from the Mac, have used Linux (and like it), and use Windows because I must. Almost everything I work with is open source, except one or two show-stoppers. (Please don't reply I should port/replicate the apps myself, I can't.) Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) -Sven
Re: Forget Windows
Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well depends on the effort needed to make it happen... and since we are in the Open Source world it is really is the community on the operating systems in question that should to the work to make it happen. I agree. LyX is developed on non-Win32 OS, so if Win32 community wants it, let them help with the effort and save the time of the core devs for enhancing native application. With every day, there are less less reasons to not switch from Win32, and LyX being one of those 'killer-app' is a good reason to try alternative OS. There are lot of Linux users who still need some Win32 application and therefore they either keep dual-boot setup or use some emulation software (Win4lin, vmware, wine, CrossOver Office...), so Win32 users (if they want ot stay) can deploy the similar strategy (e.g. vmware) or simply use some Linux Live CD, but let not the effort of developing LyX get dispersed by attempt to support Win32 version. Sincerely, Gour (utf8 user, anxious to see 1.4 happen so that Unicode-support can start :-) -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Harris wrote: A version of MikTeX (called ProTeXt) packaged with files of TeXLive first came out with the 2004 TexLive distribution. Since then ProTeXt grows with its own version numbering (two releases since TeXLive-2004, the second one very recent). Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. In that case, the self-extracting and self-installing feature of ProTeXt may fit better than TeXLive with the LyX Windows installation procedure, to get the same version of packages. I did the install. The major install for ProTeXt is Miktex and it comes with Mitex: Options, Package Manager and Update Wizard. It also comes with Context, ghostscript, TeXnic Center or a trial version of WinEdt plus a well-written 20 page installation manual. Compared to the small, medium and large MikTeX installations, ProTeXt seems more complete (near 400Mo compressed, near 700 ready to install). Unless you like (and can) load the packages on the fly, it's worth spending an hour to get everything handy. -- Jean-Pierre It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. There was no problem with the install. Again I used the browse button to find latex.exe (C:\texmf\miktex\bin) as LyX does'nt see this version Miktex. Also had to again add C:\ghostgum\gsview to Path Prefix for gsview32.exe so that the viewers, Tex Information, and the ifsym display all worked. The dsl download speed of the ProText iso file is 3 times faster than the Miktex iso file, which might be an issue for people without fixed dsl rates. Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
Okay now what you just said spits on the entire *nix community. I myself use LyX less than I do LaTeX with Kile on Debian [don't get me started with the transition LyX is having with the Debian upgrades after Sarge] and I use LyX for OS X and TeXShop for OS X. This particular section is what caught my attention: Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Please stop using LyX and any of these amateur tools already. By all means utilize that license and slave away at your Scientific Word. You're damn lucky they ported the app in the first place. Personally, I'd say screw the Win32, focus on the X, GTK+ and Qt ports and let the rest of the world smile with pleasure knowing they actually produce the highest standards of publishing with such tools the likes of which Springer Verlag, Addison-Wesley, Prentice Hall, so on and so forth are more than happy to have in order to make their jobs as publishing houses easier. If you're going to do another port I would love to see the GNUstep folks make a Cocoa Port to leverage CoreData, Foundation and full AppKit in OS X. Perhaps my colors bleed NeXT having worked there a bit too much but one can dream. When 1.4 comes out I look forward to seeing it. For now I've become quite accustomed to Kile and using LaTeX directly : it's a nice new skill to add to my ever growing list. I have no problem writing certain types of works in LyX and other types using a LaTeX editor. To all those that have developed this software your efforts have not gone in vain as by the tens of thousands of email posts in this mailing list should be proof enough. - Marc Marc J. Driftmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reanimality.com Infinite Nothingness is the Limit of Being -- marc j. driftmeyer On Nov 8, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Sven Schreiber wrote: James W Dow schrieb: LyX is a wonderful word processor. It is best one for writing mathematics directly from the keyboard. Please don't spend a huge time developing it for Windows. Windows will gradually fade away. Putting nice programs like LyX on that operating system just delays people switching to a version of Linux, where they really should be. Feeding software to Windows just lets it grow profits for people who are doing nothing positive for the computing community. I use and try to spread the use of Lyx on Windows. My colleagues are likely to adopt it once 1.4 is out with working latex import. There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) Similar for me: I came from the Mac, have used Linux (and like it), and use Windows because I must. Almost everything I work with is open source, except one or two show-stoppers. (Please don't reply I should port/replicate the apps myself, I can't.) Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) -Sven
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming leeming at ... writes: [...] Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. I guess protext-1.3.iso (a zip file) will be one of the CDs of the nest TeXLive-2005 distro. Did you get it by download or from the dvd/cd ? In that case, I suspect the files/packages to be the same. [..] record of the protext install It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. OK so protext-1.3 does not seem in sync with TexLive-2005. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. There was no problem with the install. Again I used the browse button to find latex.exe (C:\texmf\miktex\bin) as LyX does'nt see this version Miktex. Also had to again add C:\ghostgum\gsview to Path Prefix for gsview32.exe so that the viewers, Tex Information, and the ifsym display all worked. The dsl download speed of the ProText iso file is 3 times faster than the Miktex iso file, which might be an issue for people without fixed dsl rates. In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Forget Windows
Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Huh, this is a real point! Personally, I'd say screw the Win32, focus on the X, GTK+ and Qt ports and let the rest of the world smile with pleasure knowing they actually produce the highest standards of publishing with such tools the likes of which Springer Verlag, Addison-Wesley, Prentice Hall, so on and so forth are more than happy to have in order to make their jobs as publishing houses easier. I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. To all those that have developed this software your efforts have not gone in vain as by the tens of thousands of email posts in this mailing list should be proof enough. I tried with XML technology, but I'm back to LyX/LaTeX not wanting to look elsewhere. Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Sven Schreiber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) What app you have that don't run under vmware? Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) How this one can hold water... What is the logic to ...use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx..., and use LyX for win32 ? People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk. -- Lgb
Re: Forget Windows
Gour wrote: Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Huh, this is a real point! Not really. The win32 version of lyx does not in any way make it a more serious solution. More accessible of course, but no more serious. I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Helge Hafting
Re: Forget Windows
Before this develops into a flamewar, let me rectify something: I *like* Linux more than I like Windows, but that doesn't change the fact that some very specialized apps simply don't exist on *nix. I'm very glad though that many open-source apps are cross-platform so that I can work with them. This holds especially for Lyx, and by having said that I prefer Lyx over a legal Scientific Word it should be clear that I think Lyx is better overall. I don't understand why such a statement results in angry accusations. People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? What I meant is I would not be able to use Lyx for job-related work, or put differently, it would be quite impractical. I would use it at home on Linux, but if it weren't cross-platform I would have to use something different in the office(s). I simply wanted to back the cross-platform strategy of the Lyx team. They (especially Angus) have worked hard for the Windows part, and this work deserves admiration. When this thread started I was worried about the implicit verdict that all that work was useless or even counterproductive. The opposite is true: There is a real chance I get many of my colleagues to use Lyx and thus to ditch proprietary apps. But only if it runs on Windows, that's the reality for now, even if I (or you) don't like it. So which is better: Me running Linux and Vmware, with my colleagues staying away from Lyx, or everybody using native Lyx on Windows? cheers, sven
Re: Forget Windows
On 08 Nov 2005 13:19:46 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) wrote: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk. I subscribed to this list to get LyX info for Linux, not Windoze. Lately, way too much of this list has been dedicated to the latter. Why not split the list and have m$-related discussions separately? I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested, but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can someone indicate what has to be done? John
Re: Forget Windows
Helge Hafting ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Not really. The win32 version of lyx does not in any way make it a more serious solution. More accessible of course, but no more serious. Who said that? Me? Marc? Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. I just moved kde -- gnome and do not understand what would be the advantage of fltk over gtk and/or Qt? Multi-platform? I was thinking about that in the time when I proposed wxWidgets as a one multi-platform kit, but today I'm more for GTK+. However, I also understand that we won't see GTK and/or GNOME port soon, but nobody can prevent me dreaming :-) It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Well, we can still express wishes and maybe some soul(s) jump in to make a GNOME port. Many GNOME libs are available for Mac OS and arriving for Win32 (for those still needing that OS :-) Sincerely, Gour p.s. Unfortunately, my time-for-contributing-to-the-open-source-community is already slotted (e.g. gtk2hs) and I do not posess skill for coding in C++ (trying to learn Haskell for other stuff). -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Sven Schreiber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi Sven! I don't understand why such a statement results in angry accusations. I hope you didn't take my argument as a angry accusations, at least it was not meant to be so, just a slightly provoking statement to backup your statement :-) People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? What I meant is I would not be able to use Lyx for job-related work, or put differently, it would be quite impractical. I would use it at home on Linux, but if it weren't cross-platform I would have to use something different in the office(s). That's why I wrote that if you need a tool for a serious work, you can have a dual-boot setup, launch Linux LiveCD or whatever to do your work if the boss does not allow non-Win32 OS. I simply wanted to back the cross-platform strategy of the Lyx team. They (especially Angus) have worked hard for the Windows part, and this work deserves admiration. When this thread started I was worried about the implicit verdict that all that work was useless or even counterproductive. In the past I suggested to do wxWidgets port to achieve real multi-platformability (although, when I think today about it, I'll choose GTK+ but with Haskell) 'cause, imho, win32 port, xforms, qt, gtk cannot be considered multi-platform solution. Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one stroke. However, since I cannot help in coding, I do not want to complain and whine, but I'm trying to be grateful to LyX devs for everything what they are doing (I'm with LyX since '99 and my 1st steps on Linux) and help by some testing, reporting bugs, etc. My hope is that LyX will atrract some new devs and that some new real multi-platform port could be done in the future. So which is better: Me running Linux and Vmware, with my colleagues staying away from Lyx, or everybody using native Lyx on Windows? I'd say: better for you your colleagues running LyX (on Linux) and vmware - it will bring new users to both Linux LyX :-) Then, with more users on Linux desktop, more programmers will be interested to program for Linux, more companies will give financial support by paying some programmers to do full-time job on the open-source applications and in the end the whole community will benefit. There is another catch with Qt (have you read the recent decision of Novell standardizing on GNOME desktop?) but I won't delve into it producing more flame ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Lyx on Windows and layout error
Hi Stephen: Thanks for the explanation. I am using WindowsXP Professional (with absolute lates SP's installed). I did a Large ( not Total) MixTex installation. Do you think that matters ? The size difference between Large Total seems to be less than 15MB. I'd certainly perform the actions recommended by you. thanks regards, bd On 11/7/05, Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Banibrata Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Lyx on Windows and layout error Thanks a lot Angus for the reply. Since I am getting the same error for other layouts too, (i.e. non docbook ones), is some information available in the Wiki for setting up the underlying LaTeX for generating the document. In the presence of these errors, the Export options (to DVI, PS, PDF etc.) are all disabled (and that's logical too). BTW, is there a central repository (like CTAN for instance) that contains common layouts's ? Many years back I'd a short fling with KLyX, and I remember having success in using a IEEE / SigCOMP layout (and AFAIR it worked out-of-the-box). Can't seem to find it now. thanks regards, bd On 11/6/05, Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Banibrata Dutta wrote: LyX does not work very well with Windows 98 so I hope you mean Windows XP. The Lyx 1.3.6 is stable. Everything usually always works without a problem just following the defaults. I think it is most likely that there is a failure in following the directions. Leeming has a good installer for 1.3.6 but the other newer one by Uwe isn't quite perfected. There is nothing special for you to do except install Aspell and its dictionary into c:\aspell. Did you do a complete/full rather than a minimal install of Miktex? Did you install Minsys, Python and Perl? Once in awhile it has been helfpful to install LyX to c:\Lyx rather than c:\program files\lyx because latex will once in awhile have a problem with a path with spaces. Also when you add something to Lyx, sometimes is is necessary to go to the Edit menu and run reconfigure. Also Miketex has MikTex Options which includes a tool to refresh the database and fonts after you add packages. Regards, Stephen -- Diamond is a piece of coal that did well under pressure.
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming leeming at ... writes: [...] Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. I downloaded all of them but the DVD. The Windows installation of Texlive2005-install iso is quite different than the ProText installation. The Miktex maintainer complained about them wanting him to reduce the Protext install by 50mb so that it would fit on the smaller cd iso for TexLive 2005. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. I guess protext-1.3.iso (a zip file) will be one of the CDs of the nest TeXLive-2005 distro. Did you get it by download or from the dvd/cd ? In that case, I suspect the files/packages to be the same. http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2005-November/009415.html Karl Berry wrote: I don't plan to make any more package updates for TL 2005 (didn't make any today, either), and am rebuilding the images now. This still won't be the final image, though -- the German doc still needs updating, at least, which I know Klaus is working on. Optionally perhaps Vladimir and Manfred will rebuild powerpc-aix, sparc-solaris, and i386-freebsd for the new devnag, but this is not critical. I think it is likely that Protext 1.3 is on the TexLive-live 2005 dvd. [..] record of the protext install It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. OK so protext-1.3 does not seem in sync with TexLive-2005. I think they collected protext 1.3 in July and used it for the TexLive2005 dvd. The Texlive 2005 cd installs a windows version, but not the Protext version. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. The Miktex web setup gave me 317mb in .cab files. The Protext iso had around 355mb in cab files. The Miktex iso was 696/680mb depending (I didn't see any cab files on the Miktex iso, I guess they were expanded.) on what read it. Without running a comparison utility, the main difference appears to be that ProText came with a trial version of Winedt. There may be a small difference in the Miktex version used in the Miktex iso and the Miktex version used in the Protext 1.3 iso/exe version of a couple weeks. Recall that C. Schenk said the Miktex would be used later for Protext 2005 which I read is on the dvd TexLive2005-live not the cd TexLive2005-inst. In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre Yes, it seems that the Miktex or Protext iso install is more complete than the web install, although I don't know why he would exclude some packages from the web download in order put them only on cd. It is convenient to have everything on the same cd, but in the linux world they tend to keep them apart due to different licenses I suppose. I imagine the Miktex expanded iso cd could also be winrared to fit the rest of the helper apps on a
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre A few cons along with the Pros, It seems that the current MiKTeX-CD got too big for this year's ProTeXt. Thomas Feuerstack asked me to free 50 MB. Impossible! I advised Thomas to create a non-Live version of ProTeXt: the CD then contains a snapshot of the current package repository. This approach has three drawbacks: you cannot run MiKTeX from CD the setup process takes longer (cabinet files have to be extracted) you loose the ability to share MiKTeX in a network environment posted Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:31 PM by CSchenk [the maintainer] Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
John Coppens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested, but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can someone indicate what has to be done? As I wrote earlier, I cannot code, but can contribute my time to testing. Probably some of core developers can tell you everything, I'll just point you (if not seen already) to the: http://www.lyx.org/devel/guii.php where it is shown (I cannot say if it is up to date) what is the status of GTK+ port. Maybe the more help can be asked on gtk-related mailing lists. Sincerely, Gour John -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
- Original Message - From: Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Forget Windows Gour wrote: Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Helge Hafting Yes, I looked at fltk and it is intended to be cross-platform. I've also seen some great screenshots and fltk was used for (and a variation is used for making special effects in movies) porting flpsed using Minsys rather than Cygwin on Windows. The result was as good as the original on Linux. I know very little about the other approaches, so I'm not comparing to GTK+ Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
Hi Folks, We may try to wish-away windows or maybe flame-it-down, but the fact is that by saying things like -- don't spend any more effort on developing it further on Windows, what you are saying is turn the development into a prejudiced-OpenSource, not a truely world-hugging OpenSource as OpenSource is meant to be. I agree that win32 developers needs to pitch-in, but all the people who * use* Lyx on Windows are not Windows-developers (myself included). I use Windows because my company (a very large multi-national) chooses to use Windows. You may say that I should try to influence them to move them to Linux, but I know that it's easier said than done. A very large set of applications that my company uses, doesn't have robust-enough or featureful-enough counterparts on Linux. Move to Linux can only be gradual, i.e. it needs to be evolutionary and not an overnight revolution. Just see how the acceptance popularity of Linux has grown over the years, and believe me, it has a lot to do with how easy it was made for Windows user to move to Linux. If you don't do that, Linux remains a domain of the so-called nerds. I'd rather see the members of this list help, support and encourage Lyx users without trying to judge them based on which OS they run Lyx. Living with the prejudice Bill Gates is Evil, Windoze is Evil, helps nobody. BTW, I own 5 PC's (and 4 of them are multi-boot capable). All my PC's run Linux (but they also run BSD, Solarix x86, WindowsXP). I am a software programmer by profession (been that for 8yrs now). I use really wish I could help with win32 development of Lyx, because I use WindowsXP at work, and find Lyx quite powerful (well I am still a newbie), but unfortunately my knowledge of GUI programming is next to 0. my 2 cents, bd
Re: Forget Windows
John Coppens wrote:
| I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+.
The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do
it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk.
I subscribed to this list to get LyX info for Linux, not Windoze.
Lately, way too much of this list has been dedicated to the latter.
Frankly, I don't think that's true. Looking back over the mail list
archive as far as 22 Oct, I see the list of messages below. (Sorted
alphabetically.) Most all of 'em are probelms that aren't specific to
Windows, even if there's a Windows in the title.
Why not split the list and have m$-related discussions separately?
Because we are all one big LyX community :)
I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested,
but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can
someone indicate what has to be done?
I think that the definitive answer can best be provided by John Spray
(jcs116 AT york DOT ac DOT uk). Off the top of my head, there are
still a bunch of dialogs that needed to be written and the main
screen is very fragile in the presence of accented letters.
Regards,
Angus
Algorithm [7]
Beamer Compile Error
Can't see my layout environments [3]
Changing the parameters of minipage
Chapter with numbering but without word chapter - more quest [2]
Chapter* titel problem
Choice of fonts in LaTeX [3]
Creating DocBook stuff using LyX [2]
Custom layout and psmatrix from pstricks, 1.4.0pre2 [4]
Custom titlepage [5]
DPI [4]
Emacs keybindings on Windows? [2]
Faulty Latex generated by LyX ? [4]
Figure and table side by side [6]
Finding the Reason xdvi Output Disappeared [7]
Forcing LyX to retypeset included files? [4]
Forget Windows [15]
Grammar [3]
Grammar check? [3]
Graphics: jpicedt [2]
Help on article(IEEEtran) document class
Horizontal Rule [4]
How to put a box around an equation: is there a bug in Lyx? [3]
How to set latex path on windows? [2]
Installing a layout [2]
Is this possible in lyx? [8]
Is this possible with lyx? [8]
Left \cases [5]
Less spacing in figure captions [4]
LyX and xypic [5]
LyX displaying problem. [2]
Lyx Figure Placement [4]
Lyx on Windows and layout error [3]
MLA style for lyx [2]
Making a LyX environment with arguments [2]
Missing def'n for \implies causes latex problem... [3]
Missing latex classes are causing bugs
Modifying the koma-letter2 lyx template [3]
Need some trouble shootingideas [2]
Newbie question: newline before \and in author environment [5]
No line break after paragraph heading [5]
Pagination problem [5]
Please confirm your message [2]
Preamble code from the layout file gets double linespacing [2]
Putting Other Stuff On The Title Page
Some gohst haunting my Lyx
Some wishes [2]
Suggestion
Symbols for a figure key - adding a new font [15]
TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp [8]
Unwanted new paragraph after change to embedded math [2]
Upcoming LyX versions [2]
Updating dvi [6]
User-defined macros outside of math mode [2]
Using Curly Brackets in Text [3]
Using lyx and multibib [3]
Where can I see what lyx is doing in the background when [5]
Windows Lyx-1.3.6: Font problems in headings [4]
[announce] beta release of new LyXWin installer
\columnsep with multicol [3]
\usepackage[dvips]{geometry}: How? [3]
accented words in lyx 1.3.6 and suse 9.3 [4]
add index with its page number to table of contents [3]
all footnotes at end of book [3]
centre a graphic [3]
converter for pdf [3]
data sources [7]
do we have something like #ifdef from C in LyX? [7]
figures blank in pdf in lyx1.3.6 + OSX
itemize/enumerate in theorem environment possible in LyX ? [2]
lyx keyboard shortcuts [3]
lyx-1.4 cvs assertion crash when resetting wrong language
lyx-gtk compilation error [4]
mtabular environment in LyX [6]
multiinclude with beamer [3]
period after author in reference list [5]
reference
textclass.lst [6]
unusual contents found?!?!
updating postscript file, but not eepic picture [3]
using natbib with sortcompress [4]
where did my citations go? [2]
Re: Forget Windows
Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes | away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have | gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one | stroke. Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) But I guess topic should be brought back to more LyX relevant musings. -- Lgb
Please don't (was Re: Forget Windows)
While I agree w/ Marc in wanting a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end for LyX, I would like to echo the statements of Banibrata and others that it's better to have a wide variety, and please don't abandon people who need to use Windows for one reason or other. Having Windows as an option makes LyX far more widely available, and more usage means more testing which makes LyX better. It also means that LyX can run on systems with unique capabilities not afforded by Linux or Mac OS X --- I'm running LyX on Windows 2000 using Evernote's RitePen HWR software on a Fujitsu Stylistic pen slate, which means that I can work on my current book project wherever I happen to be, no need for a chair to sit on to use a laptop, or a table for a setting up a keyboardkeyboard, or a power outlet to drive a Wacom Cintiq connected to a Mac Mini (which I've still been tempted by). While Inkwell, nee Rosetta in Mac OS X is nice, it's not as well integrated as RitePen, and there's still no widely available HWR program for Linux better than xscribble AFAIK. For others who have Windows pen slates, or access to a graphics tablet, be sure to try out InftyReader (http://www.inftyproject.org/en/) contrast it w/ FFES on Linux. William (which reminds me, can I get the math area slightly increased in size?) -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Forget Windows
Stephen Harris wrote: Yes, I looked at fltk and it is intended to be cross-platform. I've also seen some great screenshots and fltk was used for (and a variation is used for making special effects in movies) porting flpsed using Minsys rather than Cygwin on Windows. The result was as good as the original on Linux. I know very little about the other approaches, so I'm not comparing to GTK+ Yes, fltk is a very nice little toolkit. In fact, it's the successor to the XForms library that we do use in one of our frontends. However, before any eager soul jumps on this frontend bandwagon, I'd like to introduce a note of caution and suggest that you really, really shouldn't create yet another frontend to LyX. Time is limited, there are only so many of us and another frontend would just be more to maintain for no real benefit. I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. Regards, Angus
Re: Suggestion
Alex Streit wrote: Hi all, I am using LyX 1.3.6 (Mac), although I've noticed the same behaviour on Linux and Windows builds. One thing that keeps getting me is that I find the selection behaviour un-intuitive. Because it is very much a character - to - character selection, which makes it hard to select and rearrange whole paragraphs or whole sections or even just a whole line. For example, say I had a list and I wanted to move the first item to the bottom. I either have to: - place the caret at the first position of the first line, select all the characters in that line, cut them, move to the bottom, manually add a new line, then paste the selection. The disadvantage is that the bullet point is not included in the selection, so if I paste it elsewhere I have to make sure I prepare a bullet point first. - alternatively i place the caret at the first position of the first line and then move back one character (which places the caret at the end of the line preceeding it) Or you can just place the cursor there directly. and then select the characters. This will now include the bullet point in the selection (which is what I would expect), but the last end-of-line (well, end of paragraph) is not included, so I still have to insert that, or select up to the start of the next line or something. If I select from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry being moved, when I paste at the new location I get both a new bullet and an end-of-paragraph. I don't know about others that use lyx, but I think that if lyx behaved a little more like traditional word processors when it came to selections at the start and end of lines I would be much happier. I have to say, though, that I love lyx and this is only a suggestion. -alex Is there actually a standard behavior for these sorts of operations? I just cobbled together a bullet list in Word Perfect and tried moving an entry. As with LyX, you can't literally include the bullet in the selection. If I place the cursor at the start of an entry and cut from there to the end of the line, an empty line (with bullet) remains, and after placing the cursor at the insertion point I need to hit Enter to get a new bullet before pasting. Personally, I prefer LyX's automatic removal of the empty line. If I cut from the start of the entry to the start of the next entry, the empty line is not there, but I still need to hit Enter at the insertion point to start a new bullet. On the other hand, if I cut from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry that is moving, then I can paste at the insertion point and get a new bullet automatically (same as LyX). I guess I'm not clear on what is nonstandard about what LyX is doing. Paul
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris techmech at ... writes: The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. I downloaded all of them but the DVD. Texlive2005-install iso is quite different than the ProText installation. The Miktex maintainer complained about them wanting him to reduce the Protext install by 50mb so that it would fit on the smaller cd iso for TexLive 2005. I guess they want to keep it installable from CD, like in 2004. (i.e. not compressed, as protext-1.3). I think the discussion will be more thorough when the dvd/cd collection will be out. The TeXLive images are currently test images, and the official TeXLive is still 2004. The Protext instruction manual, I worry, may be daunting for newcomers. I never read it, just done this (from the local LyX install instructions): 6. Install MikTeX * Decompress the archive in (e.g.) C:\ProTeXt-1.2. Be patient... * Go to C:\ProTeXt-1.2\SETUP and install -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Forget Windows
On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Angus Leeming wrote: However, before any eager soul jumps on this frontend bandwagon, I'd like to introduce a note of caution and suggest that you really, really shouldn't create yet another frontend to LyX. Time is limited, there are only so many of us and another frontend would just be more to maintain for no real benefit. I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. While I sympathize here, doing a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end really provides a lot of nice capabilities ``for free'' (Services!) and provides one with a nice version for Mac OS X and Linux and possibly Windows depending on the state of the mgstep libraries, and I believe there's even a Zaurus port. In particular, it'd jump-start native UTF-8 support. William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Suggestion
_/ On Tue 08 Nov 2005 15:09:51 GMT, [Paul A. Rubin] wrote : \_ Alex Streit wrote: Hi all, I am using LyX 1.3.6 (Mac), although I've noticed the same behaviour on Linux and Windows builds. Yes, all are rather uniform in terms of their behaviour. One thing that keeps getting me is that I find the selection behaviour un-intuitive. Because it is very much a character - to - character selection, which makes it hard to select and rearrange whole paragraphs or whole sections or even just a whole line. I noticed that too, but never complained. I re-adjusted my mind and got accustomed *over time*. This behaviour is attributed to the LaTeX/LyX for- mat underneath, yet a few tweaks could probably correct this. Selections do not include the structural information that precedes them, e.g. Sec- tion. For example, say I had a list and I wanted to move the first item to the bottom. I either have to: - place the caret at the first position of the first line, select all the characters in that line, cut them, move to the bottom, manually add a new line, then paste the selection. The disadvantage is that the bullet point is not included in the selection, so if I paste it elsewhere I have to make sure I prepare a bullet point first. - alternatively i place the caret at the first position of the first line and then move back one character (which places the caret at the end of the line preceeding it) Or you can just place the cursor there directly. and then select the characters. This will now include the bullet point in the selection (which is what I would expect), but the last end-of-line (well, end of paragraph) is not included, so I still have to insert that, or select up to the start of the next line or something. If I select from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry being moved, when I paste at the new location I get both a new bullet and an end-of-paragraph. I don't know about others that use lyx, but I think that if lyx behaved a little more like traditional word processors when it came to selections at the start and end of lines I would be much happier. I have to say, though, that I love lyx and this is only a suggestion. I think that committing changes as such would only confuse existing users. Having said that, I agree that this behaviour, which affects not only bul- leted lists, is irrational and can deter new LyX users. Is there actually a standard behavior for these sorts of operations? I just cobbled together a bullet list in Word Perfect and tried moving an entry. As with LyX, you can't literally include the bullet in the selection. If I place the cursor at the start of an entry and cut from there to the end of the line, an empty line (with bullet) remains, and after placing the cursor at the insertion point I need to hit Enter to get a new bullet before pasting. Personally, I prefer LyX's automatic removal of the empty line. If I cut from the start of the entry to the start of the next entry, the empty line is not there, but I still need to hit Enter at the insertion point to start a new bullet. On the other hand, if I cut from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry that is moving, then I can paste at the insertion point and get a new bullet automatically (same as LyX). I guess I'm not clear on what is nonstandard about what LyX is doing. Paul I can agree with you, Paul, but what people have become to accept as 'cor- rect' is not necessarily most helpful. If a user highlights the content of a bulletpoint, he/she probably wants to grab the text as-is, i.e. as a bullet. It is valuable to form some expectation of what the user wishes to do next and take the necessary steps (without popping up some doggy or a paperclip, of course). Roy
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 15:57 skreiv Lars Gullik Bjønnes: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes | away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have | gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one | stroke. Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and each have to be translated manually. So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) However, I can see why it is not going to happen as it would mean ripping out parts of lyx`s tookit independent parts and replacing them with kdelibs. So I am happy with the status quo. Ingar
Re: Forget Windows
Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. Really? Did not know that. So, it means that, in case qt goes non-gpl or something, it would not be too hard to port to another toolkit? It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) Do you mean preparing the build or extra stuff which has to be included like in win32 port? But I guess topic should be brought back to more LyX relevant musings. Isn't the future and LyX ports very relevant topic ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
William F. Adams wrote: I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. While I sympathize here, doing a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end really provides a lot of nice capabilities ``for free'' You have a strange definition of ``for free'', William. There are 295 files in the Qt frontend totalling some 27,000 lines of code. And that's neglecting the .ui files that define the dialog structure. For those interested in such stats, the whole LyX source tree (neglecting non-Qt frontend code) comprises 970 files and 170,000 lines of code. The thing is *big* and doesn't need to get any bigger. In particular, it'd jump-start native UTF-8 support. shrug Most modern toolkits have unicode support. So what? The Qt frontend has native unicode support and works today. /shrug Swiching the LyX internals over to unicode is the big plan for a 1.5 release. The fun will come in getting unicode to fit seemlessly with LaTeX. You're something of a LaTeX expert, no? I'm sure you could point out some of the problems. (To the lyx-devel list please.) Regards, Angus
Re: Forget Windows
Ingar == Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between frontends. JMarc
Memoir Install?
I'm a LyX nubie. I'm using Ubuntu 5.10, and have installed LyX via the Ubuntu package manager. How do I install Memoir? Where do I put the sty files, etc? Jack
importing material into figures
Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit This message was scanned against malicious content by the ARO secure anti-virus and anti-spam system. Volcani Infrastructure System Department
Re: Forget Windows
Ingar Pareliussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and each have to be translated manually. Good point. So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) I could also say: gnome, gnome-vfs, internationalization (I18N), localization (L10N), OS X is there, cairo back-end, win32, and lgpl license, i.e. not depending on trolltech... However, I can see why it is not going to happen as it would mean ripping out parts of lyx`s tookit independent parts and replacing them with kdelibs. So I am happy with the status quo. This I cannot comment, i.e. what is the work of tailoring the present api to new layer. Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
- Original Message - From: Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Forget Windows So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) SH: Hmmm. I like the KDE desktop and looked into the Cygwin port of KDE to Windows, which has been abandoned. Now the effort is to produce a native Windows KDE. I thought I read that this effort relied on Qt (3?) similar to LyX?
Re: Forget Windows
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Ingar == Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between frontends. JMarc I can only subscribe to that. To have to test the different translations and shortcuts in the different frontends is a pain. I have myself nearly abandoned the coherence of the Xforms shortcuts.
Re: importing material into figures
_/ On Tue 08 Nov 2005 17:32:49 GMT, [hagit lev] wrote : \_ Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Although this depends on various settings (e.g. platform, software), you may have to do a bunch of conversions first. I tend to favour the PNG for- mat, but have used the vector graphics format, namely EPS (encapsulated PostScript) where suitable, i.e. when data was not of a fixed size. For image conversions I recommend ImageMagick, although the GIMP would be good if you dislike the command line. It is also available for all popular platforms. Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit Re-scaling of images, especially if the formats are atypical, leads to bad results. Graphical toolboxes handle resampling better, so I suggest you convert the images first. Hope it helps, Roy -- Roy S. Schestowitz http://Schestowitz.com
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 17:59 skreiv Gour: Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. So, it means that, in case qt goes non-gpl or something, it would not be too hard to port to another toolkit? Lyx source code was divided in 2000(-01?) into two parts, one which is gui-independent and similar for all toolkits and a part that was dependent on the toolkit. (the toolkits started at that time was xforms, qt and gtk). So it is possible to port to other tookits without to much work (Not that I could do it :) ). However, there have been little interest in gtk port it seems, judging by the speed of development. However, this gui-independence means, as far as I have understood it, that you have to code into lyx a lot of library-stuff, like spellchecker, as you can not rely on code that might not be present in some toolkits/environments. You do not need to worry about trolltech removing qt from its gpl license. It can't happen, the source code is out there covered by gpl. Trolltech might, if they turn bad, stop releasing new versions of qt under gpl. In that case the last gpl released qt-version turns to a bsd license. http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php and even more kde myths debunked here :) http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/ Ingar
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 18:48 skreiv Stephen Harris: SH: Hmmm. I like the KDE desktop and looked into the Cygwin port of KDE to Windows, which has been abandoned. Now the effort is to produce a native Windows KDE. I thought I read that this effort relied on Qt (3?) similar to LyX? For the time being kde on windows is vapor ware. As far as I know the only work being done is to make the buildsystem of kde working in windows. When that is done they would need a lot of dedicated windows developers to port the code. If those do not materialize there will never be a kde release for windows. http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1530#comment So you are correct that the upcoming kde on windows relies on Qt4 for windows. And that lyx as well depends on qt (at least for the qt-toolkit port of lyx :) ). But (for the time being) lyx do not depend on kde. Ingar
Re: importing material into figures
Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 18:32 schrieb hagit lev: Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? You can import any figure material directly if you have a tool that can convert it (from the command line) to a format that LyX knows of. You then need to define this tool as a converter. The Wiki and Customization guide tell you how this works. If such a tool is not available you need to export the figures. I recommend the following formats: EPS or PDF for vector graphics (i. e. some graphs) PNG for bitmap figures with a small number of colors (e. g. scanned material) JPEG for bitmals with a lot of colors (e. g. photos), but keep in mind that the JPEG format is lossy Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. In theory EMF would work well for vector graphics. In practice the EMF - EPS converters available on Linux don't work well enough (because EMF and WMF formats are no real file formats, but simply a recording of the windows API calls that are needed to produce the figure on screen or on printer). The situation might be better if you are on windows, I have been told that better converters are available on that OS. You might get good results with EMF if you specify such a tool as EMF - EPS converter. Georg
Re: Suggestion
Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 17:47 schrieb Roy Schestowitz: I noticed that too, but never complained. I re-adjusted my mind and got accustomed *over time*. This behaviour is attributed to the LaTeX/LyX for- mat underneath, yet a few tweaks could probably correct this. Selections do not include the structural information that precedes them, e.g. Sec- tion. IIRC this will be fixed in the upcoming 1.4.0 release. Roy and Paul, I did not read your suggestions completely, but they look sensible at a frist glance. Please file them an enhancement request at http://bugzilla.lyx.org so that they will not be forgotten. Georg
Re: importing material into figures
hagit lev wrote: Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit There are two separate issues to deal with: importing graphics in a way that allows them to be correctly presented in the final document (DVI, PDF, whatever); and importing them in a way that allows them to be correctly displayed within the LyX editing window. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former -- it's entirely possible for LyX to have no idea how to display an image that appears correctly in the final output. In fact, I typically turn off image displays in LyX to save CPU cycles. You might have a look at the following Wiki page: http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/FiguresInLyX. As noted near the top, the final output can contain any image format that LaTeX can correctly ingest. The bulk of the Wiki page is devoted to questions of what formats LyX can display in the edit screen. You might also have a look at http://tex.loria.fr/graph-pack/epslatex.pdf, which discusses what formats LaTeX can process and how conversions to them occur. Paul
Re[2]: Forget Windows
Dear All, Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. JML Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut JML notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between JML frontends. Is it possible to create a translation code internally, to handle the differences in GUIs? I have (almost) finshed the translation of Qt strings. It would be useful, If I could reuse all of them, without doublecating thoose strings. Now, I have to copy/paste, change shortcut, verify, etc. We could make it simplier, by making a string convertion for every GUI. -- Alexmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forget Windows
On Nov 8, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Angus Leeming wrote: You have a strange definition of ``for free'', William. There are 295 files in the Qt frontend totalling some 27,000 lines of code. And that's neglecting the .ui files that define the dialog structure. Yes, but all those lines and the QT front-end don't get one the same sort of user-experience and integration which ``just happens'' for NeXT/OPEN/GNUstep and Mac OS X. For those interested in such stats, the whole LyX source tree (neglecting non-Qt frontend code) comprises 970 files and 170,000 lines of code. The thing is *big* and doesn't need to get any bigger. I thought that the whole point to GUI-Independence was that it would be possible to plug-in other front-ends w/o negatively impacting the back-end code? In particular, it'd jump-start native UTF-8 support. shrug Most modern toolkits have unicode support. So what? The Qt frontend has native unicode support and works today. /shrug Not on Mac OS X in any way I can fathom. The Edit menu in 1.40 pre2 doesn't have a ``Special characters'' entry, nor is there any way to choose an input method AFAICT. I just tried switching to the Korean keyboard and it totally disabled typing in. Maybe this works in Linux, but I haven't had that installed since the last time I installed mklinux on my wife's PowerMac at home for a contract job. Swiching the LyX internals over to unicode is the big plan for a 1.5 release. The fun will come in getting unicode to fit seemlessly with LaTeX. You're something of a LaTeX expert, no? I'm sure you could point out some of the problems. (To the lyx-devel list please.) I'll try to resubscribe and see if I can help out. Short version is it'd be ideal if there were a cross-platform version of XeTeX (http://scripts.sil.org/xetex) available now to make use of Thanks! William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Forget Windows
On Nov 8, 2005, at 1:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to create a translation code internally, to handle the differences in GUIs? I have (almost) finshed the translation of Qt strings. It would be useful, If I could reuse all of them, without doublecating thoose strings. This is one of the things one could get ``for free'' w/ a move to NeXT/OPEN/GNUstep/Cocoa, since it has a facility for dealing with this. William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Re[2]: Forget Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear All, Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. JML Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut JML notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between JML frontends. Is it possible to create a translation code internally, to handle the differences in GUIs? I have (almost) finshed the translation of Qt strings. It would be useful, If I could reuse all of them, without doublecating thoose strings. Now, I have to copy/paste, change shortcut, verify, etc. We could make it simplier, by making a string convertion for every GUI. It doesn't actually make anybody's life easier because the different frontends do actually have subtly different dialogs and messages. If you want to support only Qt, then do so. I'm firmly of the opinion that we should ditch XForms and force the Gtk frontend to be self sufficient. If it survives, great, but let's not invest too much of our own time on it. Angus (slightly millitant, largely retired and probably irrelevant :-))
Re: Forget Windows
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:53:06 + Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frankly, I don't think that's true. Looking back over the mail list archive as far as 22 Oct, I see the list of messages below. (Sorted alphabetically.) Most all of 'em are probelms that aren't specific to Windows, even if there's a Windows in the title. Hi Angus. Must be that I'm over-sensitive to the discussions of those issues ;-) I suspect I instinctively made a weighted average - personally I can't see the sense of it, but that's what makes the world a colorful place. Anyway, I see there is some interest (mine included) for a native GTK+ version, so I'll try and compile one (I suspect it compiles at least?). Who is the person to take contact with for hints/diffs/ etc? Is that John Spray? John
Re: Forget Windows
Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 22:18 schrieb John Coppens: Anyway, I see there is some interest (mine included) for a native GTK+ version, so I'll try and compile one (I suspect it compiles at least?). Yes, it does, and it is also somewhat useful, since it borrows xforms dialogs. Who is the person to take contact with for hints/diffs/ etc? Is that John Spray? Probably the devel mailing list. Georg
Re[4]: Forget Windows
Dear Angus List, Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. JML Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut Is it possible to create a translation code internally, to handle the differences in GUIs? We could make it simplier, by making a string convertion for every GUI. AL It doesn't actually make anybody's life easier because the different AL frontends do actually have subtly different dialogs and messages. Why? The GUI indepence means same content, different look. Isn't it? I thougth that the main reason for creating different frontends is achieve independence from OS native graphics support. You can compile it under different GUIs for example: GTK, Qt and XForms, whenever they are already exits for different OSes, they can solve most of the porting effort. So the developer can focus on important issues. Maybe, I am totally wrong, am I??? AL If you want to support only Qt, then do so. I'm firmly of the opinion that AL we should ditch XForms and force the Gtk frontend to be self sufficient. I have to add support for all of the frontends, of course! This is not a question. I am friend of LyX, not its enemy! In case I would like to help to distribute LyX, I have to do it with whole LyX, not with half. -- Alexmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forget Windows
William == William F Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have (almost) finshed the translation of Qt strings. It would be useful, If I could reuse all of them, without doublecating thoose strings. William This is one of the things one could get ``for free'' w/ a William move to NeXT/OPEN/GNUstep/Cocoa, since it has a facility for William dealing with this. Dealing with what? JMarc
Re: Forget Windows
Angus == Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Angus It doesn't actually make anybody's life easier because the Angus different frontends do actually have subtly different dialogs Angus and messages. I suspect 50% of the strings would turn out to be common. JMarc
Re: Forget Windows
Alex == Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alex Why? The GUI indepence means same content, different look. Isn't Alex it? The idea is that each frontend author is free to implement the dialogs as he wants. There is no contraint on their layout and/or text. JMarc
Re: Memoir Install?
On 11/8/05, Gill, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a LyX nubie. I'm using Ubuntu 5.10, and have installed LyX via the Ubuntu package manager. How do I install Memoir? Where do I put the sty files, etc? Jack, If you have a working LaTeX installation, memoir should be accessible from inside LyX: Layout - Document - Layout - Document class. Paul
Re: Memoir Install?
On 11/8/05, Gill, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I downloaded the files from CTAN, followed the instructions in the readme file, and it still didn't show up. I restarted LyX several times, and nothing. Then I rebooted the PC, and there it is. In such a situations, one must reconfigure LyX (Edit - Reconfigure) and, subsequently, restart LyX. In this way, LyX learns that new classes were installed. You are welcome! Paul
Write debug info to file
Is there any way of write debug info in a text file? I do this -- lyx -dbg latex for show debug info, but this write into console. Thx. P.D. sorry for my bad english ;)
Re: Forget Windows
William F. Adams wrote: For those interested in such stats, the whole LyX source tree (neglecting non-Qt frontend code) comprises 970 files and 170,000 lines of code. The thing is *big* and doesn't need to get any bigger. I thought that the whole point to GUI-Independence was that it would be possible to plug-in other front-ends w/o negatively impacting the back-end code? Right. It is. But who's going to write and maintain the 27000 lines of frontend code for the frontend of your choice? shrug Most modern toolkits have unicode support. So what? The Qt frontend has native unicode support and works today. /shrug Not on Mac OS X in any way I can fathom. Sorry, I meant that the Qt *toolkit* has unicode support. LyX itself uses plain ol' char to store single-byte characters. That's slated to change in the 1.5 development series. I'll try to resubscribe and see if I can help out. Short version is it'd be ideal if there were a cross-platform version of XeTeX (http://scripts.sil.org/xetex) available now to make use of The first thing to do will of course be to see if a unicode LyX can get a unicode-aware latex to run happily with unicode data. In the real world of course, we'll have to interact with latex-es that know as much about unicode as my granny. -- Angus
Re: Forget Windows
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:53:39 +0100 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex == Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alex Why? The GUI indepence means same content, different look. Isn't Alex it? The idea is that each frontend author is free to implement the dialogs as he wants. There is no contraint on their layout and/or text. But that's a bug, not a feature, right? We _should_ strive for uniformity. - Martin
Re: Write debug info to file
Abel Fernández Fernández wrote: Is there any way of write debug info in a text file? I do this -- lyx -dbg latex for show debug info, but this write into console. You can redirect the standard error output to a file on unix systems: lyx -dbg latex 2err.log On windows it looks maybe different. Georg
Re: Forget Windows
James W Dow schrieb: LyX is a wonderful word processor. It is best one for writing mathematics directly from the keyboard. Please don't spend a huge time developing it for Windows. Windows will gradually fade away. Putting nice programs like LyX on that operating system just delays people switching to a version of Linux, where they really should be. Feeding software to Windows just lets it grow profits for people who are doing nothing positive for the computing community. I use and try to spread the use of Lyx on Windows. My colleagues are likely to adopt it once 1.4 is out with working latex import. There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) Similar for me: I came from the Mac, have used Linux (and like it), and use Windows because I must. Almost everything I work with is open source, except one or two show-stoppers. (Please don't reply I should port/replicate the apps myself, I can't.) Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) -Sven
Re: Forget Windows
Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Well depends on the effort needed to make it happen... and since we are in the Open Source world it is really is the community on the operating systems in question that should to the work to make it happen. I agree. LyX is developed on non-Win32 OS, so if Win32 community wants it, let them help with the effort and save the time of the core devs for enhancing native application. With every day, there are less less reasons to not switch from Win32, and LyX being one of those 'killer-app' is a good reason to try alternative OS. There are lot of Linux users who still need some Win32 application and therefore they either keep dual-boot setup or use some emulation software (Win4lin, vmware, wine, CrossOver Office...), so Win32 users (if they want ot stay) can deploy the similar strategy (e.g. vmware) or simply use some Linux Live CD, but let not the effort of developing LyX get dispersed by attempt to support Win32 version. Sincerely, Gour (utf8 user, anxious to see 1.4 happen so that Unicode-support can start :-) -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Harris wrote: A version of MikTeX (called ProTeXt) packaged with files of TeXLive first came out with the 2004 TexLive distribution. Since then ProTeXt grows with its own version numbering (two releases since TeXLive-2004, the second one very recent). Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. In that case, the self-extracting and self-installing feature of ProTeXt may fit better than TeXLive with the LyX Windows installation procedure, to get the same version of packages. I did the install. The major install for ProTeXt is Miktex and it comes with Mitex: Options, Package Manager and Update Wizard. It also comes with Context, ghostscript, TeXnic Center or a trial version of WinEdt plus a well-written 20 page installation manual. Compared to the small, medium and large MikTeX installations, ProTeXt seems more complete (near 400Mo compressed, near 700 ready to install). Unless you like (and can) load the packages on the fly, it's worth spending an hour to get everything handy. -- Jean-Pierre It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. There was no problem with the install. Again I used the browse button to find latex.exe (C:\texmf\miktex\bin) as LyX does'nt see this version Miktex. Also had to again add C:\ghostgum\gsview to Path Prefix for gsview32.exe so that the viewers, Tex Information, and the ifsym display all worked. The dsl download speed of the ProText iso file is 3 times faster than the Miktex iso file, which might be an issue for people without fixed dsl rates. Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
Okay now what you just said spits on the entire *nix community. I myself use LyX less than I do LaTeX with Kile on Debian [don't get me started with the transition LyX is having with the Debian upgrades after Sarge] and I use LyX for OS X and TeXShop for OS X. This particular section is what caught my attention: Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Please stop using LyX and any of these amateur tools already. By all means utilize that license and slave away at your Scientific Word. You're damn lucky they ported the app in the first place. Personally, I'd say screw the Win32, focus on the X, GTK+ and Qt ports and let the rest of the world smile with pleasure knowing they actually produce the highest standards of publishing with such tools the likes of which Springer Verlag, Addison-Wesley, Prentice Hall, so on and so forth are more than happy to have in order to make their jobs as publishing houses easier. If you're going to do another port I would love to see the GNUstep folks make a Cocoa Port to leverage CoreData, Foundation and full AppKit in OS X. Perhaps my colors bleed NeXT having worked there a bit too much but one can dream. When 1.4 comes out I look forward to seeing it. For now I've become quite accustomed to Kile and using LaTeX directly : it's a nice new skill to add to my ever growing list. I have no problem writing certain types of works in LyX and other types using a LaTeX editor. To all those that have developed this software your efforts have not gone in vain as by the tens of thousands of email posts in this mailing list should be proof enough. - Marc Marc J. Driftmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reanimality.com Infinite Nothingness is the Limit of Being -- marc j. driftmeyer On Nov 8, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Sven Schreiber wrote: James W Dow schrieb: LyX is a wonderful word processor. It is best one for writing mathematics directly from the keyboard. Please don't spend a huge time developing it for Windows. Windows will gradually fade away. Putting nice programs like LyX on that operating system just delays people switching to a version of Linux, where they really should be. Feeding software to Windows just lets it grow profits for people who are doing nothing positive for the computing community. I use and try to spread the use of Lyx on Windows. My colleagues are likely to adopt it once 1.4 is out with working latex import. There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) Similar for me: I came from the Mac, have used Linux (and like it), and use Windows because I must. Almost everything I work with is open source, except one or two show-stoppers. (Please don't reply I should port/replicate the apps myself, I can't.) Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) -Sven
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming leeming at ... writes: [...] Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. I guess protext-1.3.iso (a zip file) will be one of the CDs of the nest TeXLive-2005 distro. Did you get it by download or from the dvd/cd ? In that case, I suspect the files/packages to be the same. [..] record of the protext install It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. OK so protext-1.3 does not seem in sync with TexLive-2005. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. There was no problem with the install. Again I used the browse button to find latex.exe (C:\texmf\miktex\bin) as LyX does'nt see this version Miktex. Also had to again add C:\ghostgum\gsview to Path Prefix for gsview32.exe so that the viewers, Tex Information, and the ifsym display all worked. The dsl download speed of the ProText iso file is 3 times faster than the Miktex iso file, which might be an issue for people without fixed dsl rates. In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Forget Windows
Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Huh, this is a real point! Personally, I'd say screw the Win32, focus on the X, GTK+ and Qt ports and let the rest of the world smile with pleasure knowing they actually produce the highest standards of publishing with such tools the likes of which Springer Verlag, Addison-Wesley, Prentice Hall, so on and so forth are more than happy to have in order to make their jobs as publishing houses easier. I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. To all those that have developed this software your efforts have not gone in vain as by the tens of thousands of email posts in this mailing list should be proof enough. I tried with XML technology, but I'm back to LyX/LaTeX not wanting to look elsewhere. Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Sven Schreiber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is no way that they switch OS because we need some specialized apps that only run under Windows. (Please don't reply with hints on wine, qemu, etc., I've tried it all.) What app you have that don't run under vmware? Bottom line: If Angus (and Ruurd before him) hadn't developed Lyx for Windows, I still would use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx: I would NOT use Lyx for serious work. (Instead I would probably use Scientific Word for which btw I have a valid license and still prefer Lyx.) How this one can hold water... What is the logic to ...use Linux to some extent, but not for Lyx..., and use LyX for win32 ? People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk. -- Lgb
Re: Forget Windows
Gour wrote: Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So if I read this correctly, because a Win32 port of LyX has been made possible to show the Windows User the Power of the UNIX/Linux World Design approach to Software and what Free Tools can produce using the TeX/LaTeX systems and their many prodigy as the guts underneath the highly abstracted WYSIWYM paradigm none of that matters and it's because of this Win32 option that you consider it for serious work? Never mind the fact that it is more rock solid on its primary platforms and that countless Scientists, Engineers, Writers, Publishers use the these tools for serious work, it's because of the Win32 port it is now to be considered a serious solution? Huh, this is a real point! Not really. The win32 version of lyx does not in any way make it a more serious solution. More accessible of course, but no more serious. I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Helge Hafting
Re: Forget Windows
Before this develops into a flamewar, let me rectify something: I *like* Linux more than I like Windows, but that doesn't change the fact that some very specialized apps simply don't exist on *nix. I'm very glad though that many open-source apps are cross-platform so that I can work with them. This holds especially for Lyx, and by having said that I prefer Lyx over a legal Scientific Word it should be clear that I think Lyx is better overall. I don't understand why such a statement results in angry accusations. People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? What I meant is I would not be able to use Lyx for job-related work, or put differently, it would be quite impractical. I would use it at home on Linux, but if it weren't cross-platform I would have to use something different in the office(s). I simply wanted to back the cross-platform strategy of the Lyx team. They (especially Angus) have worked hard for the Windows part, and this work deserves admiration. When this thread started I was worried about the implicit verdict that all that work was useless or even counterproductive. The opposite is true: There is a real chance I get many of my colleagues to use Lyx and thus to ditch proprietary apps. But only if it runs on Windows, that's the reality for now, even if I (or you) don't like it. So which is better: Me running Linux and Vmware, with my colleagues staying away from Lyx, or everybody using native Lyx on Windows? cheers, sven
Re: Forget Windows
On 08 Nov 2005 13:19:46 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) wrote: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk. I subscribed to this list to get LyX info for Linux, not Windoze. Lately, way too much of this list has been dedicated to the latter. Why not split the list and have m$-related discussions separately? I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested, but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can someone indicate what has to be done? John
Re: Forget Windows
Helge Hafting ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Not really. The win32 version of lyx does not in any way make it a more serious solution. More accessible of course, but no more serious. Who said that? Me? Marc? Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. I just moved kde -- gnome and do not understand what would be the advantage of fltk over gtk and/or Qt? Multi-platform? I was thinking about that in the time when I proposed wxWidgets as a one multi-platform kit, but today I'm more for GTK+. However, I also understand that we won't see GTK and/or GNOME port soon, but nobody can prevent me dreaming :-) It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Well, we can still express wishes and maybe some soul(s) jump in to make a GNOME port. Many GNOME libs are available for Mac OS and arriving for Win32 (for those still needing that OS :-) Sincerely, Gour p.s. Unfortunately, my time-for-contributing-to-the-open-source-community is already slotted (e.g. gtk2hs) and I do not posess skill for coding in C++ (trying to learn Haskell for other stuff). -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
Sven Schreiber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi Sven! I don't understand why such a statement results in angry accusations. I hope you didn't take my argument as a angry accusations, at least it was not meant to be so, just a slightly provoking statement to backup your statement :-) People are using LyX/LaTeX for SERIOUS work, not to write 1-page letter, and I don't understand for what you would use LyX if there would not be win32 port? What I meant is I would not be able to use Lyx for job-related work, or put differently, it would be quite impractical. I would use it at home on Linux, but if it weren't cross-platform I would have to use something different in the office(s). That's why I wrote that if you need a tool for a serious work, you can have a dual-boot setup, launch Linux LiveCD or whatever to do your work if the boss does not allow non-Win32 OS. I simply wanted to back the cross-platform strategy of the Lyx team. They (especially Angus) have worked hard for the Windows part, and this work deserves admiration. When this thread started I was worried about the implicit verdict that all that work was useless or even counterproductive. In the past I suggested to do wxWidgets port to achieve real multi-platformability (although, when I think today about it, I'll choose GTK+ but with Haskell) 'cause, imho, win32 port, xforms, qt, gtk cannot be considered multi-platform solution. Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one stroke. However, since I cannot help in coding, I do not want to complain and whine, but I'm trying to be grateful to LyX devs for everything what they are doing (I'm with LyX since '99 and my 1st steps on Linux) and help by some testing, reporting bugs, etc. My hope is that LyX will atrract some new devs and that some new real multi-platform port could be done in the future. So which is better: Me running Linux and Vmware, with my colleagues staying away from Lyx, or everybody using native Lyx on Windows? I'd say: better for you your colleagues running LyX (on Linux) and vmware - it will bring new users to both Linux LyX :-) Then, with more users on Linux desktop, more programmers will be interested to program for Linux, more companies will give financial support by paying some programmers to do full-time job on the open-source applications and in the end the whole community will benefit. There is another catch with Qt (have you read the recent decision of Novell standardizing on GNOME desktop?) but I won't delve into it producing more flame ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Lyx on Windows and layout error
Hi Stephen: Thanks for the explanation. I am using WindowsXP Professional (with absolute lates SP's installed). I did a Large ( not Total) MixTex installation. Do you think that matters ? The size difference between Large Total seems to be less than 15MB. I'd certainly perform the actions recommended by you. thanks regards, bd On 11/7/05, Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Banibrata Dutta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Lyx on Windows and layout error Thanks a lot Angus for the reply. Since I am getting the same error for other layouts too, (i.e. non docbook ones), is some information available in the Wiki for setting up the underlying LaTeX for generating the document. In the presence of these errors, the Export options (to DVI, PS, PDF etc.) are all disabled (and that's logical too). BTW, is there a central repository (like CTAN for instance) that contains common layouts's ? Many years back I'd a short fling with KLyX, and I remember having success in using a IEEE / SigCOMP layout (and AFAIR it worked out-of-the-box). Can't seem to find it now. thanks regards, bd On 11/6/05, Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Banibrata Dutta wrote: LyX does not work very well with Windows 98 so I hope you mean Windows XP. The Lyx 1.3.6 is stable. Everything usually always works without a problem just following the defaults. I think it is most likely that there is a failure in following the directions. Leeming has a good installer for 1.3.6 but the other newer one by Uwe isn't quite perfected. There is nothing special for you to do except install Aspell and its dictionary into c:\aspell. Did you do a complete/full rather than a minimal install of Miktex? Did you install Minsys, Python and Perl? Once in awhile it has been helfpful to install LyX to c:\Lyx rather than c:\program files\lyx because latex will once in awhile have a problem with a path with spaces. Also when you add something to Lyx, sometimes is is necessary to go to the Edit menu and run reconfigure. Also Miketex has MikTex Options which includes a tool to refresh the database and fonts after you add packages. Regards, Stephen -- Diamond is a piece of coal that did well under pressure.
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Angus Leeming leeming at ... writes: [...] Should we understand this recent release of protext-1.3 as the MikTeX equivalent of TeXLive-2005 ? I decided to test out your idea. I also did some investigating: http://dojo.miktex.org/blogs/christian_schenk/archive/2005/07/01/73.aspx MiKTeX 2.4.2007 ISO image [posted by maintainer CSchenk] I have uploaded a pretest version of the MiKTeX CD (ISO image): http://www.tug.org/ftp/tex/miktex/ The final version (available some time in July) will be the base for this year's ProTeXt. md-2.4.2025.iso.bz2 19-Jul-2005 14:34 340M Version: 2.4.2127 Date: Oct 28, 2005 SH: So yes, I would think so. The TexLive 2005 dvd includes ProText and it can't be any newer than 1.3 And I don't think there will be an update cd of TL2005. The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. I downloaded all of them but the DVD. The Windows installation of Texlive2005-install iso is quite different than the ProText installation. The Miktex maintainer complained about them wanting him to reduce the Protext install by 50mb so that it would fit on the smaller cd iso for TexLive 2005. The 1.3 iso is 383mb and the miktex iso is 340mb compressed with bz2. I guess protext-1.3.iso (a zip file) will be one of the CDs of the nest TeXLive-2005 distro. Did you get it by download or from the dvd/cd ? In that case, I suspect the files/packages to be the same. http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2005-November/009415.html Karl Berry wrote: I don't plan to make any more package updates for TL 2005 (didn't make any today, either), and am rebuilding the images now. This still won't be the final image, though -- the German doc still needs updating, at least, which I know Klaus is working on. Optionally perhaps Vladimir and Manfred will rebuild powerpc-aix, sparc-solaris, and i386-freebsd for the new devnag, but this is not critical. I think it is likely that Protext 1.3 is on the TexLive-live 2005 dvd. [..] record of the protext install It is possible to download all the Miktex packages to disk and then install. But there is an Miktex iso (if you have a burner) that will serve the same purpose as the ProTeXt iso. But the Protext .exe will be better for some. One problem is that the package versions are already 4 months old, and in 6 months will be old with the next TexLive release still 6 months further. OK so protext-1.3 does not seem in sync with TexLive-2005. I think they collected protext 1.3 in July and used it for the TexLive2005 dvd. The Texlive 2005 cd installs a windows version, but not the Protext version. Protext doesn't come with LyX but with TeXnic. LyX still needs Python so a download or 3 is still needed. Going to the homepage of the needed helper apps gives the chance for obtaining newer versions which will in some cases have a useful upgrade to the older version residing on the old cd/.exe. I doubt though, that the Miktex web setup gives as much as the Miktex iso. The Miktex web setup gave me 317mb in .cab files. The Protext iso had around 355mb in cab files. The Miktex iso was 696/680mb depending (I didn't see any cab files on the Miktex iso, I guess they were expanded.) on what read it. Without running a comparison utility, the main difference appears to be that ProText came with a trial version of Winedt. There may be a small difference in the Miktex version used in the Miktex iso and the Miktex version used in the Protext 1.3 iso/exe version of a couple weeks. Recall that C. Schenk said the Miktex would be used later for Protext 2005 which I read is on the dvd TexLive2005-live not the cd TexLive2005-inst. In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre Yes, it seems that the Miktex or Protext iso install is more complete than the web install, although I don't know why he would exclude some packages from the web download in order put them only on cd. It is convenient to have everything on the same cd, but in the linux world they tend to keep them apart due to different licenses I suppose. I imagine the Miktex expanded iso cd could also be winrared to fit the rest of the helper apps on a
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
- Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp In fact I created an iso image of all the Windows executable needed by LyX (with protext-1.2, I use only the miktex part there, just unzip and install), to provide autonomous LyX installation from CD. It's a near miss to have the miktex.exe unzipped, but no way, the size is over 700Mb in that case (454 w/protext-1.2). -- Jean-Pierre A few cons along with the Pros, It seems that the current MiKTeX-CD got too big for this year's ProTeXt. Thomas Feuerstack asked me to free 50 MB. Impossible! I advised Thomas to create a non-Live version of ProTeXt: the CD then contains a snapshot of the current package repository. This approach has three drawbacks: you cannot run MiKTeX from CD the setup process takes longer (cabinet files have to be extracted) you loose the ability to share MiKTeX in a network environment posted Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:31 PM by CSchenk [the maintainer] Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
John Coppens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested, but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can someone indicate what has to be done? As I wrote earlier, I cannot code, but can contribute my time to testing. Probably some of core developers can tell you everything, I'll just point you (if not seen already) to the: http://www.lyx.org/devel/guii.php where it is shown (I cannot say if it is up to date) what is the status of GTK+ port. Maybe the more help can be asked on gtk-related mailing lists. Sincerely, Gour John -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
- Original Message - From: Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Forget Windows Gour wrote: Marc J. Driftmeyer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+. Now, if we're making wishes - scratch the bloated gtk and go for fltk. Lightweight they way it should be, and it has nice stuff like unicode and antialiasing anyway. It probably won't happen though - lack of manpower as always. Helge Hafting Yes, I looked at fltk and it is intended to be cross-platform. I've also seen some great screenshots and fltk was used for (and a variation is used for making special effects in movies) porting flpsed using Minsys rather than Cygwin on Windows. The result was as good as the original on Linux. I know very little about the other approaches, so I'm not comparing to GTK+ Regards, Stephen
Re: Forget Windows
Hi Folks, We may try to wish-away windows or maybe flame-it-down, but the fact is that by saying things like -- don't spend any more effort on developing it further on Windows, what you are saying is turn the development into a prejudiced-OpenSource, not a truely world-hugging OpenSource as OpenSource is meant to be. I agree that win32 developers needs to pitch-in, but all the people who * use* Lyx on Windows are not Windows-developers (myself included). I use Windows because my company (a very large multi-national) chooses to use Windows. You may say that I should try to influence them to move them to Linux, but I know that it's easier said than done. A very large set of applications that my company uses, doesn't have robust-enough or featureful-enough counterparts on Linux. Move to Linux can only be gradual, i.e. it needs to be evolutionary and not an overnight revolution. Just see how the acceptance popularity of Linux has grown over the years, and believe me, it has a lot to do with how easy it was made for Windows user to move to Linux. If you don't do that, Linux remains a domain of the so-called nerds. I'd rather see the members of this list help, support and encourage Lyx users without trying to judge them based on which OS they run Lyx. Living with the prejudice Bill Gates is Evil, Windoze is Evil, helps nobody. BTW, I own 5 PC's (and 4 of them are multi-boot capable). All my PC's run Linux (but they also run BSD, Solarix x86, WindowsXP). I am a software programmer by profession (been that for 8yrs now). I use really wish I could help with win32 development of Lyx, because I use WindowsXP at work, and find Lyx quite powerful (well I am still a newbie), but unfortunately my knowledge of GUI programming is next to 0. my 2 cents, bd
Re: Forget Windows
John Coppens wrote:
| I'd also like to see more focus (especially) on GTK+.
The only way to make that happen is to get someone to do it, or do
it yourself. There is not really much developer attention on gtk.
I subscribed to this list to get LyX info for Linux, not Windoze.
Lately, way too much of this list has been dedicated to the latter.
Frankly, I don't think that's true. Looking back over the mail list
archive as far as 22 Oct, I see the list of messages below. (Sorted
alphabetically.) Most all of 'em are probelms that aren't specific to
Windows, even if there's a Windows in the title.
Why not split the list and have m$-related discussions separately?
Because we are all one big LyX community :)
I'd have a go at the GTK+ version, in which I am also interested,
but I'll surely need a hand, as I am not an ace programmer. Can
someone indicate what has to be done?
I think that the definitive answer can best be provided by John Spray
(jcs116 AT york DOT ac DOT uk). Off the top of my head, there are
still a bunch of dialogs that needed to be written and the main
screen is very fragile in the presence of accented letters.
Regards,
Angus
Algorithm [7]
Beamer Compile Error
Can't see my layout environments [3]
Changing the parameters of minipage
Chapter with numbering but without word chapter - more quest [2]
Chapter* titel problem
Choice of fonts in LaTeX [3]
Creating DocBook stuff using LyX [2]
Custom layout and psmatrix from pstricks, 1.4.0pre2 [4]
Custom titlepage [5]
DPI [4]
Emacs keybindings on Windows? [2]
Faulty Latex generated by LyX ? [4]
Figure and table side by side [6]
Finding the Reason xdvi Output Disappeared [7]
Forcing LyX to retypeset included files? [4]
Forget Windows [15]
Grammar [3]
Grammar check? [3]
Graphics: jpicedt [2]
Help on article(IEEEtran) document class
Horizontal Rule [4]
How to put a box around an equation: is there a bug in Lyx? [3]
How to set latex path on windows? [2]
Installing a layout [2]
Is this possible in lyx? [8]
Is this possible with lyx? [8]
Left \cases [5]
Less spacing in figure captions [4]
LyX and xypic [5]
LyX displaying problem. [2]
Lyx Figure Placement [4]
Lyx on Windows and layout error [3]
MLA style for lyx [2]
Making a LyX environment with arguments [2]
Missing def'n for \implies causes latex problem... [3]
Missing latex classes are causing bugs
Modifying the koma-letter2 lyx template [3]
Need some trouble shootingideas [2]
Newbie question: newline before \and in author environment [5]
No line break after paragraph heading [5]
Pagination problem [5]
Please confirm your message [2]
Preamble code from the layout file gets double linespacing [2]
Putting Other Stuff On The Title Page
Some gohst haunting my Lyx
Some wishes [2]
Suggestion
Symbols for a figure key - adding a new font [15]
TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp [8]
Unwanted new paragraph after change to embedded math [2]
Upcoming LyX versions [2]
Updating dvi [6]
User-defined macros outside of math mode [2]
Using Curly Brackets in Text [3]
Using lyx and multibib [3]
Where can I see what lyx is doing in the background when [5]
Windows Lyx-1.3.6: Font problems in headings [4]
[announce] beta release of new LyXWin installer
\columnsep with multicol [3]
\usepackage[dvips]{geometry}: How? [3]
accented words in lyx 1.3.6 and suse 9.3 [4]
add index with its page number to table of contents [3]
all footnotes at end of book [3]
centre a graphic [3]
converter for pdf [3]
data sources [7]
do we have something like #ifdef from C in LyX? [7]
figures blank in pdf in lyx1.3.6 + OSX
itemize/enumerate in theorem environment possible in LyX ? [2]
lyx keyboard shortcuts [3]
lyx-1.4 cvs assertion crash when resetting wrong language
lyx-gtk compilation error [4]
mtabular environment in LyX [6]
multiinclude with beamer [3]
period after author in reference list [5]
reference
textclass.lst [6]
unusual contents found?!?!
updating postscript file, but not eepic picture [3]
using natbib with sortcompress [4]
where did my citations go? [2]
Re: Forget Windows
Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes | away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have | gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one | stroke. Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) But I guess topic should be brought back to more LyX relevant musings. -- Lgb
Please don't (was Re: Forget Windows)
While I agree w/ Marc in wanting a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end for LyX, I would like to echo the statements of Banibrata and others that it's better to have a wide variety, and please don't abandon people who need to use Windows for one reason or other. Having Windows as an option makes LyX far more widely available, and more usage means more testing which makes LyX better. It also means that LyX can run on systems with unique capabilities not afforded by Linux or Mac OS X --- I'm running LyX on Windows 2000 using Evernote's RitePen HWR software on a Fujitsu Stylistic pen slate, which means that I can work on my current book project wherever I happen to be, no need for a chair to sit on to use a laptop, or a table for a setting up a keyboardkeyboard, or a power outlet to drive a Wacom Cintiq connected to a Mac Mini (which I've still been tempted by). While Inkwell, nee Rosetta in Mac OS X is nice, it's not as well integrated as RitePen, and there's still no widely available HWR program for Linux better than xscribble AFAIK. For others who have Windows pen slates, or access to a graphics tablet, be sure to try out InftyReader (http://www.inftyproject.org/en/) contrast it w/ FFES on Linux. William (which reminds me, can I get the math area slightly increased in size?) -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Forget Windows
Stephen Harris wrote: Yes, I looked at fltk and it is intended to be cross-platform. I've also seen some great screenshots and fltk was used for (and a variation is used for making special effects in movies) porting flpsed using Minsys rather than Cygwin on Windows. The result was as good as the original on Linux. I know very little about the other approaches, so I'm not comparing to GTK+ Yes, fltk is a very nice little toolkit. In fact, it's the successor to the XForms library that we do use in one of our frontends. However, before any eager soul jumps on this frontend bandwagon, I'd like to introduce a note of caution and suggest that you really, really shouldn't create yet another frontend to LyX. Time is limited, there are only so many of us and another frontend would just be more to maintain for no real benefit. I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. Regards, Angus
Re: Suggestion
Alex Streit wrote: Hi all, I am using LyX 1.3.6 (Mac), although I've noticed the same behaviour on Linux and Windows builds. One thing that keeps getting me is that I find the selection behaviour un-intuitive. Because it is very much a character - to - character selection, which makes it hard to select and rearrange whole paragraphs or whole sections or even just a whole line. For example, say I had a list and I wanted to move the first item to the bottom. I either have to: - place the caret at the first position of the first line, select all the characters in that line, cut them, move to the bottom, manually add a new line, then paste the selection. The disadvantage is that the bullet point is not included in the selection, so if I paste it elsewhere I have to make sure I prepare a bullet point first. - alternatively i place the caret at the first position of the first line and then move back one character (which places the caret at the end of the line preceeding it) Or you can just place the cursor there directly. and then select the characters. This will now include the bullet point in the selection (which is what I would expect), but the last end-of-line (well, end of paragraph) is not included, so I still have to insert that, or select up to the start of the next line or something. If I select from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry being moved, when I paste at the new location I get both a new bullet and an end-of-paragraph. I don't know about others that use lyx, but I think that if lyx behaved a little more like traditional word processors when it came to selections at the start and end of lines I would be much happier. I have to say, though, that I love lyx and this is only a suggestion. -alex Is there actually a standard behavior for these sorts of operations? I just cobbled together a bullet list in Word Perfect and tried moving an entry. As with LyX, you can't literally include the bullet in the selection. If I place the cursor at the start of an entry and cut from there to the end of the line, an empty line (with bullet) remains, and after placing the cursor at the insertion point I need to hit Enter to get a new bullet before pasting. Personally, I prefer LyX's automatic removal of the empty line. If I cut from the start of the entry to the start of the next entry, the empty line is not there, but I still need to hit Enter at the insertion point to start a new bullet. On the other hand, if I cut from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry that is moving, then I can paste at the insertion point and get a new bullet automatically (same as LyX). I guess I'm not clear on what is nonstandard about what LyX is doing. Paul
Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp
Stephen Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: Jean-Pierre Chrétien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:24 AM Subject: Re: TeXLive 2005, LyX and Windows xp Stephen Harris techmech at ... writes: The TeXLive DVD/CD comes with 2 different distributions: - on the DVD, a TeXLive-2005 installable on many platforms (including Windows); - on the CD, a ProTeXt-2005 self-extracting version. I downloaded all of them but the DVD. Texlive2005-install iso is quite different than the ProText installation. The Miktex maintainer complained about them wanting him to reduce the Protext install by 50mb so that it would fit on the smaller cd iso for TexLive 2005. I guess they want to keep it installable from CD, like in 2004. (i.e. not compressed, as protext-1.3). I think the discussion will be more thorough when the dvd/cd collection will be out. The TeXLive images are currently test images, and the official TeXLive is still 2004. The Protext instruction manual, I worry, may be daunting for newcomers. I never read it, just done this (from the local LyX install instructions): 6. Install MikTeX * Decompress the archive in (e.g.) C:\ProTeXt-1.2. Be patient... * Go to C:\ProTeXt-1.2\SETUP and install -- Jean-Pierre
Re: Forget Windows
On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Angus Leeming wrote: However, before any eager soul jumps on this frontend bandwagon, I'd like to introduce a note of caution and suggest that you really, really shouldn't create yet another frontend to LyX. Time is limited, there are only so many of us and another frontend would just be more to maintain for no real benefit. I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. While I sympathize here, doing a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end really provides a lot of nice capabilities ``for free'' (Services!) and provides one with a nice version for Mac OS X and Linux and possibly Windows depending on the state of the mgstep libraries, and I believe there's even a Zaurus port. In particular, it'd jump-start native UTF-8 support. William -- William Adams, publishing specialist voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708 www.atlis.com
Re: Suggestion
_/ On Tue 08 Nov 2005 15:09:51 GMT, [Paul A. Rubin] wrote : \_ Alex Streit wrote: Hi all, I am using LyX 1.3.6 (Mac), although I've noticed the same behaviour on Linux and Windows builds. Yes, all are rather uniform in terms of their behaviour. One thing that keeps getting me is that I find the selection behaviour un-intuitive. Because it is very much a character - to - character selection, which makes it hard to select and rearrange whole paragraphs or whole sections or even just a whole line. I noticed that too, but never complained. I re-adjusted my mind and got accustomed *over time*. This behaviour is attributed to the LaTeX/LyX for- mat underneath, yet a few tweaks could probably correct this. Selections do not include the structural information that precedes them, e.g. Sec- tion. For example, say I had a list and I wanted to move the first item to the bottom. I either have to: - place the caret at the first position of the first line, select all the characters in that line, cut them, move to the bottom, manually add a new line, then paste the selection. The disadvantage is that the bullet point is not included in the selection, so if I paste it elsewhere I have to make sure I prepare a bullet point first. - alternatively i place the caret at the first position of the first line and then move back one character (which places the caret at the end of the line preceeding it) Or you can just place the cursor there directly. and then select the characters. This will now include the bullet point in the selection (which is what I would expect), but the last end-of-line (well, end of paragraph) is not included, so I still have to insert that, or select up to the start of the next line or something. If I select from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry being moved, when I paste at the new location I get both a new bullet and an end-of-paragraph. I don't know about others that use lyx, but I think that if lyx behaved a little more like traditional word processors when it came to selections at the start and end of lines I would be much happier. I have to say, though, that I love lyx and this is only a suggestion. I think that committing changes as such would only confuse existing users. Having said that, I agree that this behaviour, which affects not only bul- leted lists, is irrational and can deter new LyX users. Is there actually a standard behavior for these sorts of operations? I just cobbled together a bullet list in Word Perfect and tried moving an entry. As with LyX, you can't literally include the bullet in the selection. If I place the cursor at the start of an entry and cut from there to the end of the line, an empty line (with bullet) remains, and after placing the cursor at the insertion point I need to hit Enter to get a new bullet before pasting. Personally, I prefer LyX's automatic removal of the empty line. If I cut from the start of the entry to the start of the next entry, the empty line is not there, but I still need to hit Enter at the insertion point to start a new bullet. On the other hand, if I cut from the end of the preceding entry to the end of the entry that is moving, then I can paste at the insertion point and get a new bullet automatically (same as LyX). I guess I'm not clear on what is nonstandard about what LyX is doing. Paul I can agree with you, Paul, but what people have become to accept as 'cor- rect' is not necessarily most helpful. If a user highlights the content of a bulletpoint, he/she probably wants to grab the text as-is, i.e. as a bullet. It is valuable to form some expectation of what the user wishes to do next and take the necessary steps (without popping up some doggy or a paperclip, of course). Roy
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 15:57 skreiv Lars Gullik Bjønnes: Gour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Yes, there is code-share, but every individial port (win32, gtk) takes | away the energy time of devs, and that's why I'd prefer to e.g. have | gtk port which could (if) cover Win32, Linux-like OS-es MaC OS in one | stroke. Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and each have to be translated manually. So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) However, I can see why it is not going to happen as it would mean ripping out parts of lyx`s tookit independent parts and replacing them with kdelibs. So I am happy with the status quo. Ingar
Re: Forget Windows
Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. Really? Did not know that. So, it means that, in case qt goes non-gpl or something, it would not be too hard to port to another toolkit? It is packaging that takes time, and you won't get that from just using a multi-platform lib. (qt-linux, qt-mac, qt-win) Do you mean preparing the build or extra stuff which has to be included like in win32 port? But I guess topic should be brought back to more LyX relevant musings. Isn't the future and LyX ports very relevant topic ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
William F. Adams wrote: I think we'd all like to see improved core functionality in future releases. The last three or four years have seen increased prettiness and stability and *much* nicer code but little real increase in what LyX can actually do. Now that we have something that's at least reasonably modern looking, let's turn the thing into the world beater we always hoped it would be. While I sympathize here, doing a Cocoa / GNUstep front-end really provides a lot of nice capabilities ``for free'' You have a strange definition of ``for free'', William. There are 295 files in the Qt frontend totalling some 27,000 lines of code. And that's neglecting the .ui files that define the dialog structure. For those interested in such stats, the whole LyX source tree (neglecting non-Qt frontend code) comprises 970 files and 170,000 lines of code. The thing is *big* and doesn't need to get any bigger. In particular, it'd jump-start native UTF-8 support. shrug Most modern toolkits have unicode support. So what? The Qt frontend has native unicode support and works today. /shrug Swiching the LyX internals over to unicode is the big plan for a 1.5 release. The fun will come in getting unicode to fit seemlessly with LaTeX. You're something of a LaTeX expert, no? I'm sure you could point out some of the problems. (To the lyx-devel list please.) Regards, Angus
Re: Forget Windows
Ingar == Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between frontends. JMarc
Memoir Install?
I'm a LyX nubie. I'm using Ubuntu 5.10, and have installed LyX via the Ubuntu package manager. How do I install Memoir? Where do I put the sty files, etc? Jack
importing material into figures
Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit This message was scanned against malicious content by the ARO secure anti-virus and anti-spam system. Volcani Infrastructure System Department
Re: Forget Windows
Ingar Pareliussen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and each have to be translated manually. Good point. So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) I could also say: gnome, gnome-vfs, internationalization (I18N), localization (L10N), OS X is there, cairo back-end, win32, and lgpl license, i.e. not depending on trolltech... However, I can see why it is not going to happen as it would mean ripping out parts of lyx`s tookit independent parts and replacing them with kdelibs. So I am happy with the status quo. This I cannot comment, i.e. what is the work of tailoring the present api to new layer. Sincerely, Gour -- Registered Linux User | #278493 GPG Public Key | 8C44EDCD
Re: Forget Windows
- Original Message - From: Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Forget Windows So as a translator I would like to have only one toolset to work with, and if I could have chosen I would loved a kde-frontend. There is so many things we could have gotten for free if we would made the plunge to kde instead of qt. (on the fly spell check, kio-slaves to name two from the top of my head). And offcourse as kde4 is going to be ported to win32 and osx it could be used on those architectures as well. ;) (packing work still remains, though) SH: Hmmm. I like the KDE desktop and looked into the Cygwin port of KDE to Windows, which has been abandoned. Now the effort is to produce a native Windows KDE. I thought I read that this effort relied on Qt (3?) similar to LyX?
Re: Forget Windows
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : Ingar == Ingar Pareliussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ingar As a translator I have to say that the number of toolkits Ingar increase the amount of work for the translators as well. Ingar Different toolsets have different ways to specify shortcuts and Ingar each have to be translated manually. Note we could make an effort to change this: use the shortcut notation everywhere and avoid gratuitous differences between frontends. JMarc I can only subscribe to that. To have to test the different translations and shortcuts in the different frontends is a pain. I have myself nearly abandoned the coherence of the Xforms shortcuts.
Re: importing material into figures
_/ On Tue 08 Nov 2005 17:32:49 GMT, [hagit lev] wrote : \_ Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Although this depends on various settings (e.g. platform, software), you may have to do a bunch of conversions first. I tend to favour the PNG for- mat, but have used the vector graphics format, namely EPS (encapsulated PostScript) where suitable, i.e. when data was not of a fixed size. For image conversions I recommend ImageMagick, although the GIMP would be good if you dislike the command line. It is also available for all popular platforms. Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit Re-scaling of images, especially if the formats are atypical, leads to bad results. Graphical toolboxes handle resampling better, so I suggest you convert the images first. Hope it helps, Roy -- Roy S. Schestowitz http://Schestowitz.com
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 17:59 skreiv Gour: Lars Gullik Bjønnes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Note that code share is in the very high 90's %. So, it means that, in case qt goes non-gpl or something, it would not be too hard to port to another toolkit? Lyx source code was divided in 2000(-01?) into two parts, one which is gui-independent and similar for all toolkits and a part that was dependent on the toolkit. (the toolkits started at that time was xforms, qt and gtk). So it is possible to port to other tookits without to much work (Not that I could do it :) ). However, there have been little interest in gtk port it seems, judging by the speed of development. However, this gui-independence means, as far as I have understood it, that you have to code into lyx a lot of library-stuff, like spellchecker, as you can not rely on code that might not be present in some toolkits/environments. You do not need to worry about trolltech removing qt from its gpl license. It can't happen, the source code is out there covered by gpl. Trolltech might, if they turn bad, stop releasing new versions of qt under gpl. In that case the last gpl released qt-version turns to a bsd license. http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php and even more kde myths debunked here :) http://kdemyths.urbanlizard.com/ Ingar
Re: Forget Windows
Tysdag 8. november 2005 18:48 skreiv Stephen Harris: SH: Hmmm. I like the KDE desktop and looked into the Cygwin port of KDE to Windows, which has been abandoned. Now the effort is to produce a native Windows KDE. I thought I read that this effort relied on Qt (3?) similar to LyX? For the time being kde on windows is vapor ware. As far as I know the only work being done is to make the buildsystem of kde working in windows. When that is done they would need a lot of dedicated windows developers to port the code. If those do not materialize there will never be a kde release for windows. http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1530#comment So you are correct that the upcoming kde on windows relies on Qt4 for windows. And that lyx as well depends on qt (at least for the qt-toolkit port of lyx :) ). But (for the time being) lyx do not depend on kde. Ingar
Re: importing material into figures
Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 18:32 schrieb hagit lev: Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? You can import any figure material directly if you have a tool that can convert it (from the command line) to a format that LyX knows of. You then need to define this tool as a converter. The Wiki and Customization guide tell you how this works. If such a tool is not available you need to export the figures. I recommend the following formats: EPS or PDF for vector graphics (i. e. some graphs) PNG for bitmap figures with a small number of colors (e. g. scanned material) JPEG for bitmals with a lot of colors (e. g. photos), but keep in mind that the JPEG format is lossy Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. In theory EMF would work well for vector graphics. In practice the EMF - EPS converters available on Linux don't work well enough (because EMF and WMF formats are no real file formats, but simply a recording of the windows API calls that are needed to produce the figure on screen or on printer). The situation might be better if you are on windows, I have been told that better converters are available on that OS. You might get good results with EMF if you specify such a tool as EMF - EPS converter. Georg
Re: Suggestion
Am Dienstag, 8. November 2005 17:47 schrieb Roy Schestowitz: I noticed that too, but never complained. I re-adjusted my mind and got accustomed *over time*. This behaviour is attributed to the LaTeX/LyX for- mat underneath, yet a few tweaks could probably correct this. Selections do not include the structural information that precedes them, e.g. Sec- tion. IIRC this will be fixed in the upcoming 1.4.0 release. Roy and Paul, I did not read your suggestions completely, but they look sensible at a frist glance. Please file them an enhancement request at http://bugzilla.lyx.org so that they will not be forgotten. Georg
Re: importing material into figures
hagit lev wrote: Hi I have lots of material - such as Surfer maps, Origin graphs etc. and I wondered if I can import them directly to Lyx or need to export them first to jpeg and only then import ? Cause I tried to export surfer to EMF, but the result in the DVI file was a huge picture, and when I tried to minimize it (scaling it to only 20% in the figure dialog box) the quality was horrible. Oh, and I did read the intro and tutorial and went over almost all the other guides. nice humor:) Thanks Hagit There are two separate issues to deal with: importing graphics in a way that allows them to be correctly presented in the final document (DVI, PDF, whatever); and importing them in a way that allows them to be correctly displayed within the LyX editing window. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former -- it's entirely possible for LyX to have no idea how to display an image that appears correctly in the final output. In fact, I typically turn off image displays in LyX to save CPU cycles. You might have a look at the following Wiki page: http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/FiguresInLyX. As noted near the top, the final output can contain any image format that LaTeX can correctly ingest. The bulk of the Wiki page is devoted to questions of what formats LyX can display in the edit screen. You might also have a look at http://tex.loria.fr/graph-pack/epslatex.pdf, which discusses what formats LaTeX can process and how conversions to them occur. Paul
