Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

I buy BIC's by the bushel :-)-O

el

On 2018-05-16 13:30 , John Kane wrote:
> Well, for elegant, scientific writing one can not beat this OS
> https://www.gouletpens.com/namiki/c/483

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan]

I use a Lamy Safari with a European EF nib; it works just fine.  If I 
need a finer line, then I use a Pilot Petit 1 with a Japanese EF nib.


Seriously, though, folks.  I suggest that OT advocacies of OSs or of 
writing instruments or of sexual practices not provoke mass responses. 
 Look at what else has been posted that day; if no one tells the 
advocate that he is OT, then do so, and just let it go.


On 05/16/2018 04:30 AM, John Kane wrote:


Well, for elegant, scientific writing one can not beat this OS
https://www.gouletpens.com/namiki/c/483

On 16 May 2018 at 00:42, Baris Erkus > wrote:


On 15-May-18 10:15 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:


People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants? 
Well, here's a few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny

boy:

(1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that
uses data analysis software for which there are only Windows
versions.  I used Linux exclusively prior to joining this lab. 
I'd rather not quit this job because of a Linux snobbery affliction.

(2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to
play modern video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on
WINE, which is a cheat anyway if you're a Linux purist.
(3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux
system for the sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time
booting into Linux just to write scientific documents if I'm
already in Windows.

Jim

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White wrote:

Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along
without Gates just fine.

John White


So are we now getting into a good-old "which OS is better"
discussion

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/16/2018 04:55 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
>
> I remember from a long while back - years ago - that the Lyx installer
> on Windows would ask you to point to the directory of your Latex
> distribution.  I think a good accommodation would be a message
> indicating that a Latex distribution has been identified (if one has),
> with a prompt asking users whether they'd like to use the detected
> distribution or if they'd like to point the installer to another.

In my limited testing, the installer does detect an exiting installation
and fills in that dialog for you, though it also gives you the option to
select a different directory (in case you had two installs and wanted to
use a different one).

Riki

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Jim Rockford]

I remember from a long while back - years ago - that the Lyx installer on
Windows would ask you to point to the directory of your Latex
distribution.  I think a good accommodation would be a message indicating
that a Latex distribution has been identified (if one has), with a prompt
asking users whether they'd like to use the detected distribution or if
they'd like to point the installer to another.



On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Julio Rojas  wrote:

> What I wanted to say is that the installer automatically gives the option
> to use/download/install Texlive. Is it possible?
>
>
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/16/2018 12:25 PM, Baris Erkus wrote:
> BTW, MikTeX seems to have another major update

My understanding is that the issue that led to the installer delay was
caused by a change to the way the packaging system works. The kind of
upgrade you're seeing shouldn't cause that kind of problem.

Riki

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Baris Erkus]

On 5/16/2018 5:58 PM, Julio Rojas wrote:
Not Free (as in Gratis), though... ;)

-
Julio Rojas
jcredbe...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:30 AM, John Kane 
> wrote:
Well, for elegant, scientific writing one can not beat this OS
https://www.gouletpens.com/namiki/c/483

On 16 May 2018 at 00:42, Baris Erkus 
> wrote:
On 15-May-18 10:15 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:

People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well, here's a 
few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:

(1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses data 
analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used Linux 
exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job because of 
a Linux snobbery affliction.
(2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play modern 
video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is a cheat 
anyway if you're a Linux purist.
(3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system for the 
sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into Linux just to 
write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.

Jim


On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
> wrote:
Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just fine.

John White






So are we now getting into a good-old "which OS is better" discussion



--
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

BTW, MikTeX seems to have another major update

[cid:part6.C3E3F333.8995CAAF@hotmail.com]

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Julio Rojas]

Not Free (as in Gratis), though... ;)

-
Julio Rojas
jcredbe...@gmail.com

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:30 AM, John Kane  wrote:

> Well, for elegant, scientific writing one can not beat this OS
> https://www.gouletpens.com/namiki/c/483
>
> On 16 May 2018 at 00:42, Baris Erkus  wrote:
>
>> On 15-May-18 10:15 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
>>
>>
>> People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well,
>> here's a few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:
>>
>> (1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses
>> data analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used
>> Linux exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job
>> because of a Linux snobbery affliction.
>> (2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play
>> modern video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is
>> a cheat anyway if you're a Linux purist.
>> (3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system
>> for the sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into
>> Linux just to write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
>>> just fine.
>>>
>>> John White
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So are we now getting into a good-old "which OS is better" discussion
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Kane
> Kingston ON Canada
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[John Kane]

Well, for elegant, scientific writing one can not beat this OS
https://www.gouletpens.com/namiki/c/483

On 16 May 2018 at 00:42, Baris Erkus  wrote:

> On 15-May-18 10:15 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
>
>
> People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well,
> here's a few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:
>
> (1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses data
> analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used Linux
> exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job
> because of a Linux snobbery affliction.
> (2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play
> modern video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is
> a cheat anyway if you're a Linux purist.
> (3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system
> for the sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into
> Linux just to write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
> wrote:
>
>> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
>> just fine.
>>
>> John White
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So are we now getting into a good-old "which OS is better" discussion
>



-- 
John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Baris Erkus]

On 15-May-18 10:15 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:

People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well, here's a 
few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:

(1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses data 
analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used Linux 
exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job because of 
a Linux snobbery affliction.
(2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play modern 
video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is a cheat 
anyway if you're a Linux purist.
(3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system for the 
sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into Linux just to 
write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.

Jim


On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
> wrote:
Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just fine.

John White






So are we now getting into a good-old "which OS is better" discussion

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/15/2018 05:36 PM, Julio Rojas wrote:
> What I wanted to say is that the installer automatically gives the
> option to use/download/install Texlive. Is it possible?

Anything is possible...if someone's prepared to put in the effort. My
sense is that this would not be that hard to do. You'd mostly just copy
the existing code for MikTeX.

Riki


> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck
> > wrote:
>
> On 05/15/2018 11:46 AM, Julio Rojas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck
>> > wrote:
>>
>> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
>> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a
>> single
>> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why
>> not just
>> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
>> properly
>> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
>> recently as
>> > some specific date?
>>
>> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the
>> development team:
>> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
>> with an
>> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
>> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
>> a warning,
>> and we did not think updating people's other software without
>> asking
>> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has
>> left us in a
>> bad position.
>>
>> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
>> Unfortunately,
>> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is
>> taking longer
>> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from
>> someone who
>> does use Windows.
>>
>> Riki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> And this is why I couldn't care less about MikTeX and have been
>> using TeXlive on my Windoze installations for a while. Is it
>> possible to give the alternative to use Texlive instead of MikTex?
>
> You can use LyX with whatever installation you like, but the
> "bundle" installer gives you MikTeX.
>
> Riki
>
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[John Beattie]

On 2018-05-15 14:47 -0400, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 05/15/2018 11:46 AM, Julio Rojas wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
> wrote:
> 
> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
> > some specific date?
> 
> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development 
> team:
> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a 
> warning,
> and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left us in
> a
> bad position.
> 
> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> Unfortunately,
> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking 
> longer
> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
> does use Windows.
> 
> Riki
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> And this is why I couldn't care less about MikTeX and have been using
> TeXlive on my Windoze installations for a while. Is it possible to give 
> the
> alternative to use Texlive instead of MikTex?
> 
> 
> You can use LyX with whatever installation you like, but the "bundle" 
> installer
> gives you MikTeX.
> 
> Riki
> 

I have MikTeX on my windows installation (LyX 2.2.3, 17/5/17) and it came
bundled.  I've been using LyX for about ten years and find it enormously
valuable, both at home on linux and at work on Windows. I can migrate a LyX file
from one to the other without much difficulty (though I don't do that very
often).

However, the information that the bundle is bundling a specific version of LaTeX
is fairly new to me -- by which I mean that I have gradually come to know it
over the last few years, essentially as I install LyX whenever I have to move to
a new machine.

My install order on a Windows box is: emacs, cygwin, LyX, classic windows start
menu, mercurial and then I can start to breathe more comfortably :-)

But, joking aside, I used LaTeX about twenty years ago and found it valuable
then for a thesis with a lot of formulas in it. Nevertheless my background
knowledge of LaTeX didn't really include knowing that there are different
versions. That looks a lot like different linux distros, am I right?  And, I
guess that the choice works much the same way as for linux distros.  I choose
Mint, for example, while servers at work tend to be RHEL or related, and so on.

All this is very useful knowledge, doubtless I ought to have known it and
somehow I didn't.

Can I suggest that pointing Windows users at the relevant wiki page with all
this detail on it might help?

More generally I think that LyX does a very good job of hiding the fact that it
is using plenty of other tools to generate the end document.  Perhaps there is
scope to explain that as well.

John

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Julio Rojas]

What I wanted to say is that the installer automatically gives the option
to use/download/install Texlive. Is it possible?

-
Julio Rojas
jcredbe...@gmail.com

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
wrote:

> On 05/15/2018 11:46 AM, Julio Rojas wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
>> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
>> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
>> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
>> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
>> > some specific date?
>>
>> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development team:
>> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
>> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
>> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a warning,
>> and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
>> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left us in a
>> bad position.
>>
>> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer. Unfortunately,
>> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking longer
>> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
>> does use Windows.
>>
>> Riki
>>
>>
>>
>>
> And this is why I couldn't care less about MikTeX and have been using
> TeXlive on my Windoze installations for a while. Is it possible to give the
> alternative to use Texlive instead of MikTex?
>
>
> You can use LyX with whatever installation you like, but the "bundle"
> installer gives you MikTeX.
>
> Riki
>
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 15/05/2018 à 22:59, Cris Fuhrman a écrit :
That said, LyX under Ubuntu seems less flexible than under Windows, 
since it's not using MikTeX but TeXLive. As such, when a new package or 
something is needed, it can't install it on the fly. Perhaps I missed 
something about my Ubuntu install?


Nothing stops you from using miktex on linux, actually. I am not sure 
how it works, though.


Concerning texlive, one just have to install texlive, 
texlive-latex-extra and maybe some language packages to be OK. The 
MikTeX approach is useful when every megabyte counts.


JMarc

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Cris Fuhrman]

I started out using TRS-DOS in the 80s and have been on all operating
systems over the years. ;-)

I'm primarily a Windows user today, because of the work culture and the
hardware I have (Surface Pro). But I've always believed that any kind of
dogma regarding the "best flavor" of IT is dangerous because, well, it's
ephemeral. Even if you're right today...

That said, LyX under Ubuntu seems less flexible than under Windows, since
it's not using MikTeX but TeXLive. As such, when a new package or something
is needed, it can't install it on the fly. Perhaps I missed something about
my Ubuntu install?

Cheers,

Cris

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Jim Rockford 
wrote:

>
> People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well,
> here's a few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:
>
> (1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses data
> analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used Linux
> exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job
> because of a Linux snobbery affliction.
> (2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play
> modern video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is
> a cheat anyway if you're a Linux purist.
> (3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system
> for the sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into
> Linux just to write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
> wrote:
>
>> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
>> just fine.
>>
>> John White
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Jim Rockford]

People are still taunting about this like schoolyard infants?  Well, here's
a few reasons for you that apply to my case, Johnny boy:

(1)  I work in a scientific field and a specific laboratory that uses data
analysis software for which there are only Windows versions.  I used Linux
exclusively prior to joining this lab.  I'd rather not quit this job
because of a Linux snobbery affliction.
(2)  Gaming.  I have a Windows machine at home because I like to play
modern video games.  Good luck trying to get them to run on WINE, which is
a cheat anyway if you're a Linux purist.
(3)  There's nothing wrong with having a dual boot Windows/Linux system for
the sake of convenience.  I'm not going to waste time booting into Linux
just to write scientific documents if I'm already in Windows.

Jim


On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:03 PM, John White 
wrote:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just
> fine.
>
> John White
>
>
>
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/15/2018 11:46 AM, Julio Rojas wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck
> > wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
> > some specific date?
>
> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> team:
> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a
> warning,
> and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left
> us in a
> bad position.
>
> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> Unfortunately,
> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking
> longer
> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
> does use Windows.
>
> Riki
>
>
>
>
> And this is why I couldn't care less about MikTeX and have been using
> TeXlive on my Windoze installations for a while. Is it possible to
> give the alternative to use Texlive instead of MikTex?

You can use LyX with whatever installation you like, but the "bundle"
installer gives you MikTeX.

Riki

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Julio Rojas]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
wrote:

> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
> > some specific date?
>
> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development team:
> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a warning,
> and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left us in a
> bad position.
>
> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer. Unfortunately,
> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking longer
> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
> does use Windows.
>
> Riki
>
>
>
>
And this is why I couldn't care less about MikTeX and have been using
TeXlive on my Windoze installations for a while. Is it possible to give the
alternative to use Texlive instead of MikTex?

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Walter van Holst]

On 2018-05-14 19:22, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:

refused, and has refused again in the last couple days. His view is 
that

this kind of warning will confuse some users and that those same users
are at risk of having broken installations if we do not do the upgrade
for them. So his view is that we should do the upgrade silently. I find


Silent updates of software that is not maintained/released by the LyX 
team would be a betrayal of user trust. I think you made the right call.


Regards,

 Walter

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Kees Zeelenberg]

I may be wrong but my understanding of the discussion is that we are moving
towards a situation where LyX can only be installed if the latest MikTeX is
or has been installed. If this is so, then I have some doubts whether this
is wise and practical:

2018-05-14 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bernt Lie :

> A slight update on my indicated procedure in #2: I am, of course, no
> developer and no computer scientist. So let me indicate some understanding
> also for decisions made on things I don't understand.
>
> Suppose... updating MikTeX leads to the following:
> * the latest MikTeX is not backwards compatible, i.e., documents that used
> to work stop working -- that would be a pain for the guy who provides the
> Windows installation,
> * installing the latest MikTeX leads to wiping out currently installed
> templates, etc. for journals, conferences, etc., so that these must be
> reinstalled -- probably something that some people would find a pain, and
> bitch about,
> * installing the latest MikTeX has proved to be problematic for some
> versions of Windows (e.g., some users tend to prefer Windows 7 and refuse
> to update to Windows 10, etc., etc.).
>
>
Precisely for these and similar reasons, it is not wise to require updating
MikTeX to the latest one. The latest one is usually not the one that was
current at the time LyX was compiled and the installer created. So we can
never guarantee that LyX works with the latest MikTeX, and therefore we
should not require updating to the latest one. Instead the procedure
followed until 2.2.3 works always. That is: there are two installers. The
first one installs only LyX, and it is up to the user to ensure that he has
a working and compatible TeX installation, whether that is the latest
MikTeX, an earlier MikTeX, TeX Live, or another one. The second one
installs LyX + MikTeX; users choosing this installer should be warned that
LyX may cease to work correctly, if they update or otherwise change the
MikTeX installation, and that MikTex should remain frozen.

Moreover there is now a TeX Live distribution for Windows, and if we
require MikTeX (that is, if the installer refuses to install unless MikTeX
is installed), this would be a great barrier to users who favor TeX Live.


> In summary: I understand some caution if the guy who provides the Windows
> installation may come in a situation that makes many users "mad". That is
> never a good situation.
>

I agree. Requiring to update to the latest MikTeX could possibly lead to a
lot of questions to the maintainer.

Cheers,

Kees

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/14/2018 05:08 AM, Bernt Lie wrote:
> A slight update on my indicated procedure in #2: I am, of course, no 
> developer and no computer scientist. So let me indicate some understanding 
> also for decisions made on things I don't understand.
>
> Suppose... updating MikTeX leads to the following:
> * the latest MikTeX is not backwards compatible, i.e., documents that used to 
> work stop working -- that would be a pain for the guy who provides the 
> Windows installation,
> * installing the latest MikTeX leads to wiping out currently installed 
> templates, etc. for journals, conferences, etc., so that these must be 
> reinstalled -- probably something that some people would find a pain, and 
> bitch about,
> * installing the latest MikTeX has proved to be problematic for some versions 
> of Windows (e.g., some users tend to prefer Windows 7 and refuse to update to 
> Windows 10, etc., etc.).
>
> In summary: I understand some caution if the guy who provides the Windows 
> installation may come in a situation that makes many users "mad". That is 
> never a good situation.
>
> However, if there are no problems, for me it would be perfectly fine if the 
> installation procedure checked the current installation of MikTeX, and if I 
> didn't have the correct one installed, simply informed me:
>
> * "LyX v. 2.3.0 requires the latest installation of MikTeX. You have not 
> installed the latest version on your computer, and the installation is 
> therefore terminated.
>
> If you want to upgrade to LyX v. 2.3.0, please follow the procedure at 
> www. and first upgrade MikTeX to the latest version. NOTE: if you choose 
> to upgrade MikTeX, and there are some problems with MikTeX on your computer, 
> you do this on your own responsibility."
>
> Or something to that effect...

As Scott more or less said about a different proposal, this goes way
beyond the compromise that the other developers had proposed to Uwe. Our
suggestion was simply to warn the user at the outset that MikTeX *would*
be upgraded as part of the install, and to offer them the opportunity to
cancel the install if they don't want the upgrade to happen. Uwe
refused, and has refused again in the last couple days. His view is that
this kind of warning will confuse some users and that those same users
are at risk of having broken installations if we do not do the upgrade
for them. So his view is that we should do the upgrade silently. I find
it hard to understand this point of view, but that is what Uwe thinks,
so we are at stalemate.

I am working on building a Windows installer myself, but since I haven't
used Windows in fifteen years or so, it's taking me a bit of time to get
up to speed. I think I'm getting close, but I've been thinking that for
a while.

Riki

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Baris Erkus]

I do not why mails do not appear. I am sending again..

On 13-May-18 3:16 PM, Bernt Lie wrote:
1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. I 
don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes not 
used by oneself.

2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
* Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
* Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, proceed 
and install LyX 2.3.0
* If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".

Maybe a solution?
B

I have sent an e-mail a while back and told my experience with the current LyX 
approach and how problematic it is if one tries to update Miktex while running 
LyX setup program. I have tried it several times but never worked for me. I 
have recommended the above approach (or smtg similar) as well.

In my opinion, developers should not put their valuable time into what they are 
doing right now; instead they should proceed with the above approach (which 
seems easier to implement) and concentrate on making LyX more compatible with 
MikTeXs current and future releases. (Sorry if what I said does not make sense 
as I am not a programmer.)

RE: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

A slight update on my indicated procedure in #2: I am, of course, no developer 
and no computer scientist. So let me indicate some understanding also for 
decisions made on things I don't understand.

Suppose... updating MikTeX leads to the following:
* the latest MikTeX is not backwards compatible, i.e., documents that used to 
work stop working -- that would be a pain for the guy who provides the Windows 
installation,
* installing the latest MikTeX leads to wiping out currently installed 
templates, etc. for journals, conferences, etc., so that these must be 
reinstalled -- probably something that some people would find a pain, and bitch 
about,
* installing the latest MikTeX has proved to be problematic for some versions 
of Windows (e.g., some users tend to prefer Windows 7 and refuse to update to 
Windows 10, etc., etc.).

In summary: I understand some caution if the guy who provides the Windows 
installation may come in a situation that makes many users "mad". That is never 
a good situation.

However, if there are no problems, for me it would be perfectly fine if the 
installation procedure checked the current installation of MikTeX, and if I 
didn't have the correct one installed, simply informed me:

* "LyX v. 2.3.0 requires the latest installation of MikTeX. You have not 
installed the latest version on your computer, and the installation is 
therefore terminated.

If you want to upgrade to LyX v. 2.3.0, please follow the procedure at www. 
and first upgrade MikTeX to the latest version. NOTE: if you choose to upgrade 
MikTeX, and there are some problems with MikTeX on your computer, you do this 
on your own responsibility."

Or something to that effect...

-B

-Original Message-
From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> On Behalf Of Steve Litt
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:55
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

On Mon, 14 May 2018 06:58:30 +
Baris Erkus <bariser...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 13-May-18 3:16 PM, Bernt Lie wrote:
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that 
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For 
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for 
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be 
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.
> 
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading 
> to the latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, 
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on 
> how the user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded 
> MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?
> B

Your plan outlined in point #2 above seems like a great idea to me.
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows, so I might not know the full extent of the 
problem.

SteveT

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Steve Litt]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 06:58:30 +
Baris Erkus  wrote:

> On 13-May-18 3:16 PM, Bernt Lie wrote:
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.
> 
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of
> upgrading to the latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If
> yes, proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on
> how the user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have
> upgraded MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?
> B

Your plan outlined in point #2 above seems like a great idea to me.
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows, so I might not know the full extent of
the problem.

SteveT

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Baris Erkus]

On 13-May-18 3:16 PM, Bernt Lie wrote:
1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. I 
don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes not 
used by oneself.

2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
* Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
* Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, proceed 
and install LyX 2.3.0
* If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".

Maybe a solution?
B

I have sent an e-mail a while back and told my experience with the current LyX 
approach and how problematic it is if one tries to update Miktex while running 
LyX setup program. I have tried it several times but never worked for me. I 
have recommended the above approach (or smtg similar) as well.

In my opinion, developers should not put their valuable time into what they are 
doing right now; instead they should proceed with the above approach (which 
seems easier to implement) and concentrate on making LyX more compatible with 
MikTeXs current and future releases. (Sorry if what I said does not make sense 
as I am not a programmer.)

BE

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/13/2018 08:16 AM, Bernt Lie wrote:
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.
>
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading
> to the latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes,
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on
> how the user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded
> MikTeX".
>
> Maybe a solution?

The rest of the development team has asked for even less: Just a message
explaining that MikTeX will be upgraded, with an option to cancel if one
wants to do it manually or get more info. It's fine with us if the
upgrade be done as part of the install, as long as the user is told.

Riki


>
>
> From: Anders Ekberg
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
> To: Bernt Lie
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
>
>
> 1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users
> are running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to
> explain the problem
>
> 2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx)
> *without asking the user*
>
> All the best!
> Anders
>
> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie <bernt@usn.no
> <mailto:bernt@usn.no>>:
>
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without
> Gates just fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1
> colleague who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own
> system, hacks LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he
> manages fine with his own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative
> tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based
> tools, that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX
> that will sink -- our management thinks that Word is just fine... I
> have no problems with LyX developers preferring another OS (ref:
> statement that none of the developers use Windows). But if people
> associated with developing a software tool goes public with opinions
> like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that would make it
> impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me
> fine, so I can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely
> clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX
> must be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible)
> newer version will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX
> to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of
> backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-----
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
> <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>> On Behalf
> Of Steve Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White <j...@whitelawchartered.com
> <mailto:j...@whitelawchartered.com>> wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> > just fine.
> >
> > John White
> >
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote: 
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > > recently as some specific

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

Since I'm currently a Windows user: I do curse it every now and then. I used 
VMS and Solaris long time ago + MacOS a little at the same time; they also had 
their things.

B

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>


From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> on behalf of Jean-Marc 
Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 4:58:52 PM
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

Le 13/05/2018 à 14:16, Bernt Lie a écrit :
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that
> developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For
> various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for
> others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be
> used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.

We are glad to have users on Windows, macOS and Linux/*BSD (maybe haiku
too but I am not so sure). The fact that most of us are linux users
makes things more complicated that it should be. I have actually no idea
of what is the repartition of users across OSes.

So you will not see the developers disparage other OSes than the one
they choose, except in case of intense frustration :)

JMarc

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:16:33PM +, Bernt Lie wrote:
> For various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for others 
> making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be used for 
> negative description of OSes not used by oneself.

+1.

> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
> latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, 
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
> user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?

Thanks for the idea. This has been proposed:

  
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180303171721.hv4rgrj6k3a3itv7%40steph

Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the root disagreement.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 13/05/2018 à 14:16, Bernt Lie a écrit :
1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that 
developers can not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For 
various reasons, I use Windows myself. And I have full respect for 
others making different choices. I don't think the LyX list should be 
used for negative description of OSes not used by oneself.


We are glad to have users on Windows, macOS and Linux/*BSD (maybe haiku 
too but I am not so sure). The fact that most of us are linux users 
makes things more complicated that it should be. I have actually no idea 
of what is the repartition of users across OSes.


So you will not see the developers disparage other OSes than the one 
they choose, except in case of intense frustration :)


JMarc

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Anders Ekberg]

1 agree, but censor a list is not really good either (most posts, such as this 
one) are not by developers

2 see the discussion on the developers list, suggestions like this have been 
thoroughly discussed

> 13 maj 2018 kl. 14:16 skrev Bernt Lie <bernt@usn.no>:
> 
> 1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
> not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
> Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. 
> I don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes 
> not used by oneself.
> 
> 2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
> latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
> * Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
> * Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, 
> proceed and install LyX 2.3.0
> * If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
> user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".
> 
> Maybe a solution?
> B
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> 
> 
> From: Anders Ekberg
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
> To: Bernt Lie
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> 
> 
> 1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
> running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain 
> the problem
> 
> 2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
> asking the user*
> 
> All the best!
> Anders
> 
> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie <bernt@usn.no>:
> 
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> > fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
> who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks 
> LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his 
> own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
> that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
> our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
> developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
> use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
> public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
> would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows 
> users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
> can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must 
> be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX 
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible) newer 
> version will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX to the latest 
> version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of backwards 
> compatibility, then I don’t see any problem. 
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> On Behalf Of Steve 
> Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White <j...@whitelawchartered.com> wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates 
> > just fine.
> > 
> > John White
> > 
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:  
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single 
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not 
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function 
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as 
> > > > recently as some specific date?
> > > 
> > > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was goin

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

1: I agree, and I didn't say so. Essentially, my point is that developers can 
not do that without compromising its OS agnostics. For various reasons, I use 
Windows myself. And I have full respect for others making different choices. I 
don't think the LyX list should be used for negative description of OSes not 
used by oneself.

2: I see the point. If there are no negative side effects of upgrading to the 
latest version of MikTeX, I'd do the following:
* Put in a LyX 2.3.0 installation link.
* Start by checking if the latest MikTeX version is installed. If yes, proceed 
and install LyX 2.3.0
* If not, explain why, and point to a link (youtube, or whatever) on how the 
user can upgrade MikTeX and say "retry after you have upgraded MikTeX".

Maybe a solution?
B

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>



From: Anders Ekberg
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 13:33
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
To: Bernt Lie
Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org


1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain the 
problem

2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
asking the user*

All the best!
Anders

13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie 
<bernt@usn.no<mailto:bernt@usn.no>>:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> fine.

I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks LaTeX 
classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his own 
set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
--
"Why are people still using Windows?"

Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.
--
Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
* Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must be 
updated for some technical reason.
* What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX console 
says

Is there a newer MikTeX version? Is the problem that a (possible) newer version 
will not be backwards compatible?If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, 
install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face no problem of backwards compatibility, then I 
don’t see any problem.

BL




-Original Message-
From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org<mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> 
<lyx-users@lists.lyx.org<mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>> On Behalf Of Steve 
Litt
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org<mailto:lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.

On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.

SteveT


On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
John White <j...@whitelawchartered.com<mailto:j...@whitelawchartered.com>> 
wrote:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> just fine.
>
> John White
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > recently as some specific date?
> >
> > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > that has left us in a bad position.
> >
> > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so
> > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome
> > help from someone who does use Windows.
> >
> > Riki
>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Anders Ekberg]

1 I haven’t seen any developer having any opinion on which os users are 
running, they are simply stating what they are running in order to explain the 
problem

2 the question is if you should update software (other than lyx) *without 
asking the user*

All the best!
Anders

> 13 maj 2018 kl. 10:48 skrev Bernt Lie <bernt@usn.no>:
> 
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> > fine.
>  
> I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
> who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks 
> LaTeX classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his 
> own set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).
> --
> "Why are people still using Windows?"
>  
> Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
> that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
> our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
> developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
> use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
> public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
> would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows 
> users.
> --
> Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
> can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.
> * Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must 
> be updated for some technical reason.
> * What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX 
> console says
>  
> Is there a newer MikTeX version?
> Is the problem that a (possible) newer version will not be backwards 
> compatible?
> If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and face 
> no problem of backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.
>  
> BL
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> On Behalf Of Steve 
> Litt
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries
>  
> ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.
>  
> On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.
>  
> SteveT
>  
>  
> On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
> John White <j...@whitelawchartered.com> wrote:
>  
> > Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> > just fine.
> >
> > John White
> >
> > On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote: 
> > > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > > recently as some specific date?
> > >
> > > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > > that has left us in a bad position.
> > >
> > > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so
> > > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome
> > > help from someone who does use Windows.
> > >
> > > Riki
> >
>  

RE: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Bernt Lie]

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just 
> fine.



I use Windows, almost all of my colleagues use Windows. I know of 1 colleague 
who uses Linux - he is very computer savvy, sets up his own system, hacks LaTeX 
classes, and is not interested in using LyX -- he manages fine with his own 
set-up. Many LaTeX users use alternative tools (TeXnicCenter, etc.).

--

"Why are people still using Windows?"



Well, fact is: our IT infrastructure is so tied up into Windows based tools, 
that if the choice comes between Windows and LyX, it is LyX that will sink -- 
our management thinks that Word is just fine... I have no problems with LyX 
developers preferring another OS (ref: statement that none of the developers 
use Windows). But if people associated with developing a software tool goes 
public with opinions like “why on earth do people still use Windows”, that 
would make it impossible to advocate the use of that software to Windows users.

--

Regarding the delay of LyX 2.3.0 for Windows -- v 2.2.3 serves me fine, so I 
can wait. Still, the reason for the problem is not entirely clear to me.

* Yes, I understand that there is a problem with MikTeX in that MikTeX must be 
updated for some technical reason.

* What is not clear is why it is a problem to update MikTeX. My MikTeX console 
says[cid:image001.jpg@01D3EAA7.E33844B0]



  *   Is there a newer MikTeX version?
  *   Is the problem that a (possible) newer version will not be backwards 
compatible?
  *   If I can update MikTeX to the latest version, install LyX v. 2.3.0, and 
face no problem of backwards compatibility, then I don’t see any problem.



BL









-Original Message-
From: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> On Behalf Of Steve Litt
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 7:49
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Subject: Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries



ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.



On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.



SteveT





On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700

John White <j...@whitelawchartered.com<mailto:j...@whitelawchartered.com>> 
wrote:



> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates

> just fine.

>

> John White

>

> On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:

> > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:

> > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single

> > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not

> > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function

> > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as

> > > recently as some specific date?

> >

> > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development

> > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,

> > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The

> > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such

> > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software

> > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So

> > that has left us in a bad position.

> >

> > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.

> > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so

> > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome

> > help from someone who does use Windows.

> >

> > Riki

>

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Steve Litt]

ROFLMAO, I ask myself this all the time, on multiple mailing lists.

On the bright side, 90% of the heartache doesn't apply to me.

SteveT


On Sat, 12 May 2018 20:03:09 -0700
John White  wrote:

> Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates
> just fine.
> 
> John White
> 
> On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:  
> > > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not
> > > just include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function
> > > properly with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as
> > > recently as some specific date?  
> > 
> > That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development
> > team: A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX,
> > with an option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The
> > person responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such
> > a warning, and we did not think updating people's other software
> > without asking permission to do so was something we should do. So
> > that has left us in a bad position.
> > 
> > We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer.
> > Unfortunately, none of the active development team use Windows, so
> > it is taking longer than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome
> > help from someone who does use Windows.
> > 
> > Riki  
> 

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[John White]

Why are people still using Windows?  My firm gets along without Gates just fine.

John White

On Friday, May 11, 2018 4:18:17 PM PDT Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> > In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> > user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
> > include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
> > with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
> > some specific date?
> 
> That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development team:
> A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
> option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
> responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a warning,
> and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
> permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left us in a
> bad position.
> 
> We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer. Unfortunately,
> none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking longer
> than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
> does use Windows.
> 
> Riki

Re: The tortured release of 2.3.0 Windows binaries

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/11/2018 03:37 PM, Jim Rockford wrote:
> In my 20+ years in the world of science, I have not known a single
> user of Lyx (~50 in total) who wasn't computer savvy.  Why not just
> include a warning message that Lyx 2.3.0 may not function properly
> with MiKTeX distributions that have not been updated as recently as
> some specific date?

That is more or less what was proposed by most of the development team:
A warning at start-up, that LyX was going to update MikTeX, with an
option for the user to abort the install if they wish. The person
responsible for the Windows packages refused to include such a warning,
and we did not think updating people's other software without asking
permission to do so was something we should do. So that has left us in a
bad position.

We are working now to try to produce a Windows installer. Unfortunately,
none of the active development team use Windows, so it is taking longer
than it otherwise might. We'd certainly welcome help from someone who
does use Windows.

Riki