Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Manveru]

Paradoxically, Lamport is currently working at M$... look at:
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/

2008/3/26, Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:

  LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
  text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
  while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
  suggested by others.
 

  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
 defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass,
 and
 the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
 you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
 and you won't have to think about it again.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
  limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
  foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
  the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
  finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 

  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae
 and
 symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
 adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting
 system.
 The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly
 language
 to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front
 end;
 I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
 Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)

  Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
  one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to
  contain
  separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
  document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
  have you?
 

  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
 documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a
 master
 document.

 Rich

 --
 Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  Integrity
  Credibility
 Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax:
 503-667-8863




-- 
Manveru
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 gg: 1624001
   http://www.manveru.pl

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Manveru]

Paradoxically, Lamport is currently working at M$... look at:
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/

2008/3/26, Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:

  LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
  text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
  while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
  suggested by others.
 

  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
 defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass,
 and
 the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
 you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
 and you won't have to think about it again.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
  limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
  foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
  the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
  finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 

  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae
 and
 symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
 adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting
 system.
 The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly
 language
 to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front
 end;
 I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
 Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)

  Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
  one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to
  contain
  separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
  document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
  have you?
 

  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
 documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a
 master
 document.

 Rich

 --
 Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  Integrity
  Credibility
 Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax:
 503-667-8863




-- 
Manveru
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 gg: 1624001
   http://www.manveru.pl

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Manveru]

Paradoxically, Lamport is currently working at M$... look at:
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/

2008/3/26, Rich Shepard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
>  LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
> > text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
> > while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
> > suggested by others.
> >
>
>  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
> defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass,
> and
> the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
> you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
> and you won't have to think about it again.
>
>  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
> > limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
> > foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
> > multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
> > collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
> > thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
> > period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
> > the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
> > finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
> >
>
>  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
> 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae
> and
> symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
> adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting
> system.
> The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly
> language
> to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front
> end;
> I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
> Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)
>
>  Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
> > one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to
> > contain
> > separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
> > document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
> > have you?
> >
>
>  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
> documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a
> master
> document.
>
> Rich
>
> --
> Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  Integrity
>  Credibility
> Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
>  Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax:
> 503-667-8863
>



-- 
Manveru
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 gg: 1624001
   http://www.manveru.pl

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?
  

Then it would not differ from wysiwyg, and
texmacs tries to do something like that.

The problems are:
1. No machine is fast enough for this, or will ever be.
2. It'd be unpleasant anyway.

It'd be unpleasant because even one character added or removed
will sometimes trigger big changes. A difference of one letter
will often enough alter the line breaking of the entire paragraph.

When you edit the middle of some large paragraph, do you want
text in the whole paragraph jumping around, as all of it rebreaks
completely with new hyphenation points several times per sentence?
The cursor itself will move back and forth too, and possibly shift
to a different line or page.

Occationally, the different line breaking will also affect the
page breaking and the positions of all floats. Typing into
a real fast latex processor would be a jumpy and sometimes
confusing experience.

As for no machine being fast enough - rebreaking of
several pages and moving floats takes time, usually
more time than you want between keystrokes. It'll make a fast
pc seem sluggish. And this is normal stuff. 


Now, latex happens to be a programming language
capable of doing any computation.
This means that stuff complicated enough to slow down any
computer is possible. I would not recommend to try, but it is
at least possible to have latex itself render a raytraced image. I don't
expect anyone to do that, but machines getting faster means that
people add more demanding latex packages too.


LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.
  

LyX can embed latex commands directly. This gives
you all the power you can dream of - although not with
a pretty user interface.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),

Rich Shepard wrote:


On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
  

WYSIWYG promise?


Andre',

   I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
  

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!



Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output.

Sure. LyX tries to be wysiwyg when that is easy to do.  Wysiwyg is
ok as long as it doesn't limit output quality. But sometimes the real-time
constraints of editing collide with time-consuming layout algorithms.
This is where other word processors gives up on layout to satisfy
the real-time constraints, while LyX choose to give up on wysiwyg instead,
in order to be both fast and produce nice final output.

The most striking examples of not being wysiwyg
are line and page breaking.
The line breaking is greatly simplified compared to what latex do.
This gives lyx more speed than other word processors, and
it also gives latex better quality than any word processor.
There is no attempt at page breaking in LyX at all. It'd be hopeless
to have it match latex, and it'd be useless if it didn't.

This is usually ok, but sometimes confusing for people who want
to know how many pages they have. Or when you notice
a typo in the middle of the third line on page 17 of your printout.
Okay, so you can't just go to page 17, you go to the nearest section
heading and count paragraphs. And then they typo isn't in the
middle of some line, but near an edge instead.

Placing and sizing figures is another not so wysiwyg case.

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.


I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:


* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
  

We can say all that - and keep wysiwym too. :-) Nice list.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?
  

Then it would not differ from wysiwyg, and
texmacs tries to do something like that.

The problems are:
1. No machine is fast enough for this, or will ever be.
2. It'd be unpleasant anyway.

It'd be unpleasant because even one character added or removed
will sometimes trigger big changes. A difference of one letter
will often enough alter the line breaking of the entire paragraph.

When you edit the middle of some large paragraph, do you want
text in the whole paragraph jumping around, as all of it rebreaks
completely with new hyphenation points several times per sentence?
The cursor itself will move back and forth too, and possibly shift
to a different line or page.

Occationally, the different line breaking will also affect the
page breaking and the positions of all floats. Typing into
a real fast latex processor would be a jumpy and sometimes
confusing experience.

As for no machine being fast enough - rebreaking of
several pages and moving floats takes time, usually
more time than you want between keystrokes. It'll make a fast
pc seem sluggish. And this is normal stuff. 


Now, latex happens to be a programming language
capable of doing any computation.
This means that stuff complicated enough to slow down any
computer is possible. I would not recommend to try, but it is
at least possible to have latex itself render a raytraced image. I don't
expect anyone to do that, but machines getting faster means that
people add more demanding latex packages too.


LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.
  

LyX can embed latex commands directly. This gives
you all the power you can dream of - although not with
a pretty user interface.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),

Rich Shepard wrote:


On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
  

WYSIWYG promise?


Andre',

   I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
  

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!



Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output.

Sure. LyX tries to be wysiwyg when that is easy to do.  Wysiwyg is
ok as long as it doesn't limit output quality. But sometimes the real-time
constraints of editing collide with time-consuming layout algorithms.
This is where other word processors gives up on layout to satisfy
the real-time constraints, while LyX choose to give up on wysiwyg instead,
in order to be both fast and produce nice final output.

The most striking examples of not being wysiwyg
are line and page breaking.
The line breaking is greatly simplified compared to what latex do.
This gives lyx more speed than other word processors, and
it also gives latex better quality than any word processor.
There is no attempt at page breaking in LyX at all. It'd be hopeless
to have it match latex, and it'd be useless if it didn't.

This is usually ok, but sometimes confusing for people who want
to know how many pages they have. Or when you notice
a typo in the middle of the third line on page 17 of your printout.
Okay, so you can't just go to page 17, you go to the nearest section
heading and count paragraphs. And then they typo isn't in the
middle of some line, but near an edge instead.

Placing and sizing figures is another not so wysiwyg case.

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.


I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:


* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
  

We can say all that - and keep wysiwym too. :-) Nice list.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?
  

Then it would not differ from wysiwyg, and
texmacs tries to do something like that.

The problems are:
1. No machine is fast enough for this, or will ever be.
2. It'd be unpleasant anyway.

It'd be unpleasant because even one character added or removed
will sometimes trigger big changes. A difference of one letter
will often enough alter the line breaking of the entire paragraph.

When you edit the middle of some large paragraph, do you want
text in the whole paragraph jumping around, as all of it rebreaks
completely with new hyphenation points several times per sentence?
The cursor itself will move back and forth too, and possibly shift
to a different line or page.

Occationally, the different line breaking will also affect the
page breaking and the positions of all floats. Typing into
a real fast latex processor would be a jumpy and sometimes
confusing experience.

As for no machine being fast enough - rebreaking of
several pages and moving floats takes time, usually
more time than you want between keystrokes. It'll make a fast
pc seem sluggish. And this is "normal stuff". 


Now, latex happens to be a programming language
capable of doing any computation.
This means that stuff complicated enough to slow down any
computer is possible. I would not recommend to try, but it is
at least possible to have latex itself render a raytraced image. I don't
expect anyone to do that, but machines getting faster means that
people add more demanding latex packages too.


LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.
  

LyX can embed latex commands directly. This gives
you all the power you can dream of - although not with
a pretty user interface.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Helge Hafting]

Steve Litt wrote:

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),

Rich Shepard wrote:


On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
  

WYSIWYG promise?


Andre',

   I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
  

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!



Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output.

Sure. LyX tries to be wysiwyg when that is easy to do.  Wysiwyg is
ok as long as it doesn't limit output quality. But sometimes the real-time
constraints of editing collide with time-consuming layout algorithms.
This is where other word processors gives up on layout to satisfy
the real-time constraints, while LyX choose to give up on wysiwyg instead,
in order to be both fast and produce nice final output.

The most striking examples of not being wysiwyg
are line and page breaking.
The line breaking is greatly simplified compared to what latex do.
This gives lyx more speed than other word processors, and
it also gives latex better quality than any word processor.
There is no attempt at page breaking in LyX at all. It'd be hopeless
to have it match latex, and it'd be useless if it didn't.

This is usually ok, but sometimes confusing for people who want
to know how many pages they have. Or when you notice
a typo in the middle of the third line on page 17 of your printout.
Okay, so you can't just go to page 17, you go to the nearest section
heading and count paragraphs. And then they typo isn't in the
middle of some line, but near an edge instead.

Placing and sizing figures is another not so wysiwyg case.

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.


I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:


* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
  

We can say all that - and keep "wysiwym" too. :-) Nice list.

Helge Hafting

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
Rich Shepard wrote:
 
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
 
  WYSIWYG promise?
 
 Andre',
 
I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
 At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),

 Rich Shepard wrote:
  On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
   WYSIWYG promise?
 
  Andre',
 
 I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.

 Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
 who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
 than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
 LyX are perfect for that!

Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:

* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

SteveT 

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Pavel Sanda]

 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
 looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
 margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

but these visual elements are there to convey _meanings_ not visual appearance
in resulting pdf.

 For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
 Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
 typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
 show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
 graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

but this lack of WYSIWYM was not caused by the fact that they had different
vision about word processing. it simply was not easy to create WYSIWYG
under MS DOS or what was the original platform.

 I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of 
 LyX. 

to me it has nothing to do with the marketing. its just clear statement of the 
philosophy and the direction.

 Why can't just say things like the following:

yes, the lines below were marketing advertisment. and on many points i can 
argue easily with you.
moreover, once you start doing such adverts there will be zilions of 
angryfrustrated
people on list complaining that lyx does not do WYSIWYM or DTP stuff.

 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
 prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

pavel

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[James Sutherland]

 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to
 prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
 
 then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
 WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.
 

Agreed.  IMO, WYSIWYM embodies the intention of LyX very well.  It is
clearly not a WYSIWYG program like Word, Pages, WordPerfect, OpenOffice,
etc.  It is mainly a LaTeX front-end (and a VERY nice one at that)...

James

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:26 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 
  I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
  prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
 
 then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
 WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

And it actually comes across very well.  I recently had a new student
(newbie when it comes to LyX etc) start in my group.  I told her that
she would be writing in LyX or LaTeX (choice up to her).  She started
reading the LyX documentation and very soon came into my office to say
that she just loved the what you mean bit -- she had never heard
anything similar and it just totally clicked with her!

Anyway, back to writing real stuff... :)

cheers,
eric

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:43:20 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
 On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
  who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
  than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
  LyX are perfect for that!
 
 Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
 
 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content
 in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes,
 weights, slants, margins all look similar to the eventual output.

But these are part of what I mean...

In any case, it's the simple things that matter.  For instance, if I
make the window wider, the text reformats on screen so I can see more
paragraphs...  Do the same in a wysiwyg tool and all you get is more
empty space in your window.

But to each his own so if you want to think of LyX as wysiwyg, then so
be it!  The important thing to me is that LyX does the job so much
better than any other tool I use (except maybe emacs... ;-).

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

wrb



 -Original Message-
 From: Steve Litt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:43 AM
 To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
 
  Rich Shepard wrote:
   On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
WYSIWYG promise?
  
   Andre',
  
  I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
 
  Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is 
 for people 
  who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that 
 knows more 
  than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  
 And LaTeX or 
  LyX are perfect for that!
 
 Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
 
 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX 
 content in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. 
 Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, margins all look similar 
 to the eventual output. 
 
 For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old 
 WordPerfect 5.1. 
 Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the 
 printed page has typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the 
 like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even show graphics -- it just 
 had a 1 character white block to represent the graphic. Now 
 THAT was non-WYSIWYG.
 
 I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG 
 marketing of LyX. 
 Why can't just say things like the following:
 
 * Our output looks much better
 * Our output follows true typographic convention by default
 * Our page numbers are always accurate
 * Our two column stuff comes out right
 * Our chapters begin on the correct page
 * Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
 * Our program is much more stable than most word processors
 * Our native format is easy to parse text
 * Our user interface is fast for the touch typist
 
 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are 
 confusing to prospective and new LyX users, and really don't 
 make much sense.
 
 SteveT 
 
 Steve Litt
 Books written in LyX:
   Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
 
 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
suggested by others.


  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and
the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
and you won't have to think about it again.


One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.


  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae and
symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly language
to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front end;
I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)


Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to contain
separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
have you?


  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a master
document.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

  
Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the document can be 
rendered in who knows how many different formats simply by changing the 
document class. This is similar in spirit to the separation of content 
and presentation in XHTML/CSS, the semantic web, and all such good things.



LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

  

See above.


I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

  
You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing houses use it 
all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to format a magazine with it. 
It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing you're 
looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it would be silly to 
criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like criticizing a hammer because it 
doesn't help you with screws.



One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

  
No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that ground. We just 
think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds of applications, including 
book production---though probably not coffeetable art book production. 
As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and the like 
with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the fact the LaTeX 
prefers semantic markup makes it possible to make major changes to 
presentation in an instant. You can even render the file as Braille, and 
LaTeX will handle the conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.


LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have to know how 
to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of that, though it will help 
you with some. LyX is for writers, not page layout folks. You want to do 
page layout with LyX, then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you 
should do this only when you are completely done writing and (b) you 
might as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at that 
point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may involve tweaking LaTeX 
class files, and that has nothing to do with LyX.



LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

  
But, first, you're assuming that there's one intended output format, and 
that just isn't always true. And more importantly, none of us 
developers---I'd be shocked if I don't speak for all of us---want LyX to 
be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES 
with the process of writing. The separation of content from presentation 
revolutionized the process of writing for me. But you do have to get 
used to it and, well, just stop fussing so much over details of 
presentation, at least until you're done writing. Why mess with where a 
figure goes when the whole page may change?


Of course, if you're a page layout person, then that's different. But 
then LyX isn't your tool.



Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

  
LyX doesn't contain LaTeX files at all. Rather, LyX files are in its own 
format, and they are exported to LaTeX as required for conversion, etc. 
You can even see paragraphs rendered on the fly if you ViewSource. But 
yes, in a way, each LyX file is one LaTeX file. Still, boxes do contain 
what is effectively LaTeX code. And if you want to build a document from 
several LyX files, then you can use the Include and Input mechanisms to 
do that. The natural way to write a book in LyX is to have a file for 
each 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 
 William R. Buckley schrieb:
 
  If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
  could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
  keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
 typist), how 
  would this differ from WYSIWYG?
 
 WYSIWYM only works when you trust the LaTeX machine to 
 produce the best possible output. This seems the problem you 
 habe. For the LyX users its THE advantage:
 You e.g. add a caption and you don't have to take care about 
 it later. When the publisher tells you later that you should 
 have italic captions, it is only one preamble entry away; 
 when you use another document class, the caption layout is 
 automatically changed according to the class rules. This is 
 very useful when you are writing for several publishing 
 companies. Most of the companies provide their own document 
 class, all you have to do in LyX is to use the document class 
 of your publisher and the text gets formatted as it should. 
 This would not be possible with WYSIWYG.
 
 But anyway, the things you complain about are design things 
 of LaTeX, not LyX. LyX is a frontend to LaTeX to be able to 
 write texts without the need to learn LaTeX. The concept of 
 LaTeX has been proven to be THE choice for publishing 
 companies all over the world: Nearly all scientific stuff, 
 books as well as journals, are typeset using LaTeX (or 
 pdfTeX, omega, etc.), even when you send your text to them as 
 Word-file.
 
  What I find missing is knobs.  I
  guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura 
 Publisher 
  has lots of knobs to its user interface, really powerful knobs.
 
 I don't know what exactly you are missing. LyX provides you 
 countless options and settings in all areas. But while 
 reading your post again, it seems that you decided to use 
 Ventura Publisher, before testing out LyX carefully. Many of 
 your questions are obsolete when you read LyX's Intro manual 
 and the Tutorial. The LyX UserGuide is a perfect document to 
 see what output can be produced and how it can be produced.
 But while comparing programs, can Ventura handle 
 nomenclatures, bilbiographies, and indexes? From all programs 
 I know to publish books, LyX has the most powerful features 
 for indexes and bibliographies.

Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.

Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.

And, no, I did not review LyX first.  I've been using Ventura
Publisher for more than twenty years.

LyX has its charms and its challenges, just like any other tool.

Finally, at this point, I am having no difficulty converting my
document from Ventura Publisher to LaTeX via LyX.  I'm not
always comfortable with using LyX but, it is quickly becoming
as effortless as is Ventura Publisher.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:38 PM
 To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: RE: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:
 
  LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I 
  want text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under 
  suspension, while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms 
  that have been suggested by others.
 
You can write your own class or style that overrides and 
 changes the defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., 
 Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and the theses classes of many 
 universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how you want it, 
 then you'll have consistent results from document to document 
 and you won't have to think about it again.

Ventura does the same thing, and you move these from document to
document, publication to publication.  They are called style sheets, and
can be quite extensive.  Clearly, this is a capability that is shared by
the tools, Ventura Publisher and LyX.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
  the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
 VP is first 
  and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
 including 
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
 and publish 
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
 publication of many 
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
 position of a 
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
  layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
 layout the text 
  with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 
On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because 
 in the 1970s and 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to 
 typeset mathematical formulae and symbols well. From what 
 I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly adhere to 
 this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
 The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of 
 assembly language to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro 
 system. LyX adds a GUI front end; I suppose to finish the 
 programming language analogy it's not like Visual Cobol, but 
 more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)
 
  Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain 
  only one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and 
 its kind 
  to contain separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher 
  level piece a document together, page by page, outputting 
 the image to 
  a PDF, or what have you?
 
Probably for the same reason that those who process words 
 write separate documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them 
 into a whole by using a master document.
 
 Rich

Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.


William,

  That's true. And different does not mean better or worse. I use several
text editors: joe (shell scripts, .conf files, default editor in pine and
slrn, quick little editing tasks), emacs (coding, including .c, .py, .html,
and .css), scribus (marketing brochures and flyers), and lyx (serious
writing of articles, reports, letters, proposals, slide presentations). I do
keep OO.o here for translating .doc files sent to me and -- on _very_ rare
occasions -- when I must send a document to a client or agency for them to
edit.

  Each tool has its purpose, and I appreciate the specialization because it
makes each outstanding within its designed limits.

Happy translating,

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Uwe Stöhr]

William R. Buckley schrieb:


Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.


I meant the glossaries.


As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.


Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be very similar to Ventura. The problem 
there was the bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of references, so you use databases 
to collect and insert them. But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so that 
sending a manuscript to different publishers is a nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography 
format style with a few mouse clicks.


What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography capabilities and that you can change 
every time the layout of the document. I can even take a document that I usually print in A4, set 
its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly ready to print document, becase LateX does the 
recalculations for me, including the image placements. This is useful when producing books as you 
don't always know the exact book page size while typesetting.



Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.


Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in different ways. LaTeX is 
only one of them.

regards Uwe

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:04 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 William R. Buckley schrieb:
 
  Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
 
 I meant the glossaries.
 
  As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura 
  Publisher handles these quite well.
 
 Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be 
 very similar to Ventura. The problem there was the 
 bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of 
 references, so you use databases to collect and insert them. 
 But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so 
 that sending a manuscript to different publishers is a 
 nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography format 
 style with a few mouse clicks.
 
 What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography 
 capabilities and that you can change every time the layout of 
 the document. I can even take a document that I usually print 
 in A4, set its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly 
 ready to print document, becase LateX does the recalculations 
 for me, including the image placements. This is useful when 
 producing books as you don't always know the exact book page 
 size while typesetting.
 
  Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient to 
  produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I 
 take it that 
  experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.
 
 Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in 
 different ways. LaTeX is only one of them.

I agree with the point that TeX has deep integration with bibliographic
stores, and that is not well served in Ventura Publisher.  But, for all
that has been incorporated within the publication, things get real easy.
Glossaries, lists of figures, lists of tables, cross-references, you name
it.

I don't really use all this power, since most of what I write are academic
publications.

The only complaint I have with Ventura Publisher is, well two complaints,
it does not output or input LaTeX, and Corel Corporation has effectively
abandoned the product.

In truth, much as I love Ventura Publisher, the lack of product development
on the part of Corel means that I must seek other tools.  LyX will probably
be the choice I make.  I am effectively there already.

 regards Uwe
 
 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:59 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 William R. Buckley wrote:
  On this note, add my pipe.
 
  If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
  could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
  keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
 typist), how 
  would this differ from WYSIWYG?
 

 Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the 
 document can be rendered in who knows how many different 
 formats simply by changing the document class. This is 
 similar in spirit to the separation of content and 
 presentation in XHTML/CSS, the semantic web, and all such 
 good things.

One would not expect that the layout would change between the
strokes of keys struck during textual input, for instance.  Hence,
as far as the user would be concerned (and where the LyX display
is configured so as to *roughly* represent the final output - see the
assertions of Mr. Litt), it would look just like the WYSIWYG system
that I like to use.  Visually, you would not be able to tell the
difference.

  LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is tantamount 
 to a LaTeX 
  processor, and if that is the case, why not just save the produced 
  image, instead of running LaTeX again to produce a file?
 

 See above.
 
  I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very 
 interesting 
  ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed knowledge of 
 La/TeX.  
  What I find missing is knobs.  I guess I have to get used 
 to working 
  without knobs.  Ventura Publisher has lots of knobs to its user 
  interface, really powerful knobs.
 

 You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing 
 houses use it all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to 
 format a magazine with it. 
 It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing 
 you're looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it 
 would be silly to criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like 
 criticizing a hammer because it doesn't help you with screws.

All critical review is of value.  And, the passionate response you
give here is well understood.  Yet, I did not complain about LyX.
I am merely comparing LyX with another tool that I know well, and
noting the variations between them.  I do not expect that any change
to LyX will come from my commentary.  Still, it is likely that others
will appreciate the different point of view, one with differences from
those others which may occasion this list.

I do agree strongly that one asks the tool how it wants to be used.
No use trying to apply a hammer to a screw.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
  the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
 VP is first 
  and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
 including 
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
 and publish 
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
 publication of many 
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
 position of a 
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
  layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
 layout the text 
  with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 

 No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that 
 ground. We just think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds 
 of applications, including book production---though probably 
 not coffeetable art book production. 
 As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and 
 the like with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the 
 fact the LaTeX prefers semantic markup makes it possible to 
 make major changes to presentation in an instant. You can 
 even render the file as Braille, and LaTeX will handle the 
 conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.
 
 LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have 
 to know how to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of 
 that, though it will help you with some. LyX is for writers, 
 not page layout folks. You want to do page layout with LyX, 
 then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you should do this 
 only when you are completely done writing and (b) you might 
 as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at 
 that point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may 
 involve tweaking LaTeX class files, and that has nothing to 
 do with LyX.
 
  LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly language of 
  words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think that LyX can 
 be every bit 
  as WYSIWYG as Ventura Publisher, without sacrificing the 
 WYSIWYM ethos 
  of La/TeX.
 

 But, first, you're assuming that there's one intended output 
 format, and that just isn't always true. And more 

Multiple ouotput formats are easily supported in Ventura, just
change the stylesheet

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
don't speak for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least 
lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the 
process of writing. The separation of content from 
presentation revolutionized the process of writing for me. 
But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop 
fussing so much over details of presentation, at least until 
you're done writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when 
the whole page may change?



This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the text,
then later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use
Ventura like a typewriter, just like other writers.

  
But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If you're 
writing, why on earth would you be using a program capable of what 
Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.


I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something the likes of 
BibTeX.


rh

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

Is it really overkill to drive a Mercedes versus a Fiat?

And, the formatting details are not distracting, except
for distractible minds.

And, no, I do not suggest that the bibliography feature
is as capable as BibTeX.  Indeed, this is perhaps my
biggest complaint with Ventura Publisher, that other
very capable tools are excluded from the suite.  I do
very much wish that TeX were one of those supported
tools.  VP was last copyrighted in 2002.

wrb 

 -Original Message-
 From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:51 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 
  importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
 don't speak 
  for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think 
  that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the process of 
 writing. The 
  separation of content from presentation revolutionized the 
 process of 
  writing for me.
  But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop fussing so 
  much over details of presentation, at least until you're done 
  writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when the whole page may 
  change?
  
 
  This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the 
 text, then 
  later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use 
 Ventura like a 
  typewriter, just like other writers.
 

 But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If 
 you're writing, why on earth would you be using a program 
 capable of what Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.
 
 I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
 Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something 
 the likes of BibTeX.
 
 rh
 
 
 

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
Rich Shepard wrote:
 
 On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
 
  WYSIWYG promise?
 
 Andre',
 
I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
 At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),

 Rich Shepard wrote:
  On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
   WYSIWYG promise?
 
  Andre',
 
 I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.

 Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
 who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
 than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
 LyX are perfect for that!

Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:

* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

SteveT 

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Pavel Sanda]

 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
 looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
 margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

but these visual elements are there to convey _meanings_ not visual appearance
in resulting pdf.

 For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
 Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
 typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
 show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
 graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

but this lack of WYSIWYM was not caused by the fact that they had different
vision about word processing. it simply was not easy to create WYSIWYG
under MS DOS or what was the original platform.

 I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG marketing of 
 LyX. 

to me it has nothing to do with the marketing. its just clear statement of the 
philosophy and the direction.

 Why can't just say things like the following:

yes, the lines below were marketing advertisment. and on many points i can 
argue easily with you.
moreover, once you start doing such adverts there will be zilions of 
angryfrustrated
people on list complaining that lyx does not do WYSIWYM or DTP stuff.

 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
 prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

pavel

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[James Sutherland]

 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to
 prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
 
 then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
 WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.
 

Agreed.  IMO, WYSIWYM embodies the intention of LyX very well.  It is
clearly not a WYSIWYG program like Word, Pages, WordPerfect, OpenOffice,
etc.  It is mainly a LaTeX front-end (and a VERY nice one at that)...

James

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:26 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 
  I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are confusing to 
  prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
 
 then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
 WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

And it actually comes across very well.  I recently had a new student
(newbie when it comes to LyX etc) start in my group.  I told her that
she would be writing in LyX or LaTeX (choice up to her).  She started
reading the LyX documentation and very soon came into my office to say
that she just loved the what you mean bit -- she had never heard
anything similar and it just totally clicked with her!

Anyway, back to writing real stuff... :)

cheers,
eric

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:43:20 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
 On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
  who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
  than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
  LyX are perfect for that!
 
 Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
 
 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content
 in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes,
 weights, slants, margins all look similar to the eventual output.

But these are part of what I mean...

In any case, it's the simple things that matter.  For instance, if I
make the window wider, the text reformats on screen so I can see more
paragraphs...  Do the same in a wysiwyg tool and all you get is more
empty space in your window.

But to each his own so if you want to think of LyX as wysiwyg, then so
be it!  The important thing to me is that LyX does the job so much
better than any other tool I use (except maybe emacs... ;-).

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

wrb



 -Original Message-
 From: Steve Litt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:43 AM
 To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
  At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
 
  Rich Shepard wrote:
   On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
WYSIWYG promise?
  
   Andre',
  
  I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
 
  Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is 
 for people 
  who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that 
 knows more 
  than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  
 And LaTeX or 
  LyX are perfect for that!
 
 Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
 
 In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX 
 content in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. 
 Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, margins all look similar 
 to the eventual output. 
 
 For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old 
 WordPerfect 5.1. 
 Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the 
 printed page has typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the 
 like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even show graphics -- it just 
 had a 1 character white block to represent the graphic. Now 
 THAT was non-WYSIWYG.
 
 I've never understood the WYSIWYM and we are not WYSIWYG 
 marketing of LyX. 
 Why can't just say things like the following:
 
 * Our output looks much better
 * Our output follows true typographic convention by default
 * Our page numbers are always accurate
 * Our two column stuff comes out right
 * Our chapters begin on the correct page
 * Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
 * Our program is much more stable than most word processors
 * Our native format is easy to parse text
 * Our user interface is fast for the touch typist
 
 I think the we're not WYSIWYG and WYSIWYM slogans are 
 confusing to prospective and new LyX users, and really don't 
 make much sense.
 
 SteveT 
 
 Steve Litt
 Books written in LyX:
   Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
   Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
   Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
 
 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
suggested by others.


  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and
the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
and you won't have to think about it again.


One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.


  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae and
symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly language
to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front end;
I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)


Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to contain
separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
have you?


  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a master
document.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

  
Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the document can be 
rendered in who knows how many different formats simply by changing the 
document class. This is similar in spirit to the separation of content 
and presentation in XHTML/CSS, the semantic web, and all such good things.



LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

  

See above.


I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

  
You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing houses use it 
all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to format a magazine with it. 
It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing you're 
looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it would be silly to 
criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like criticizing a hammer because it 
doesn't help you with screws.



One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

  
No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that ground. We just 
think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds of applications, including 
book production---though probably not coffeetable art book production. 
As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and the like 
with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the fact the LaTeX 
prefers semantic markup makes it possible to make major changes to 
presentation in an instant. You can even render the file as Braille, and 
LaTeX will handle the conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.


LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have to know how 
to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of that, though it will help 
you with some. LyX is for writers, not page layout folks. You want to do 
page layout with LyX, then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you 
should do this only when you are completely done writing and (b) you 
might as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at that 
point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may involve tweaking LaTeX 
class files, and that has nothing to do with LyX.



LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

  
But, first, you're assuming that there's one intended output format, and 
that just isn't always true. And more importantly, none of us 
developers---I'd be shocked if I don't speak for all of us---want LyX to 
be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES 
with the process of writing. The separation of content from presentation 
revolutionized the process of writing for me. But you do have to get 
used to it and, well, just stop fussing so much over details of 
presentation, at least until you're done writing. Why mess with where a 
figure goes when the whole page may change?


Of course, if you're a page layout person, then that's different. But 
then LyX isn't your tool.



Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

  
LyX doesn't contain LaTeX files at all. Rather, LyX files are in its own 
format, and they are exported to LaTeX as required for conversion, etc. 
You can even see paragraphs rendered on the fly if you ViewSource. But 
yes, in a way, each LyX file is one LaTeX file. Still, boxes do contain 
what is effectively LaTeX code. And if you want to build a document from 
several LyX files, then you can use the Include and Input mechanisms to 
do that. The natural way to write a book in LyX is to have a file for 
each 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 
 William R. Buckley schrieb:
 
  If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
  could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
  keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
 typist), how 
  would this differ from WYSIWYG?
 
 WYSIWYM only works when you trust the LaTeX machine to 
 produce the best possible output. This seems the problem you 
 habe. For the LyX users its THE advantage:
 You e.g. add a caption and you don't have to take care about 
 it later. When the publisher tells you later that you should 
 have italic captions, it is only one preamble entry away; 
 when you use another document class, the caption layout is 
 automatically changed according to the class rules. This is 
 very useful when you are writing for several publishing 
 companies. Most of the companies provide their own document 
 class, all you have to do in LyX is to use the document class 
 of your publisher and the text gets formatted as it should. 
 This would not be possible with WYSIWYG.
 
 But anyway, the things you complain about are design things 
 of LaTeX, not LyX. LyX is a frontend to LaTeX to be able to 
 write texts without the need to learn LaTeX. The concept of 
 LaTeX has been proven to be THE choice for publishing 
 companies all over the world: Nearly all scientific stuff, 
 books as well as journals, are typeset using LaTeX (or 
 pdfTeX, omega, etc.), even when you send your text to them as 
 Word-file.
 
  What I find missing is knobs.  I
  guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura 
 Publisher 
  has lots of knobs to its user interface, really powerful knobs.
 
 I don't know what exactly you are missing. LyX provides you 
 countless options and settings in all areas. But while 
 reading your post again, it seems that you decided to use 
 Ventura Publisher, before testing out LyX carefully. Many of 
 your questions are obsolete when you read LyX's Intro manual 
 and the Tutorial. The LyX UserGuide is a perfect document to 
 see what output can be produced and how it can be produced.
 But while comparing programs, can Ventura handle 
 nomenclatures, bilbiographies, and indexes? From all programs 
 I know to publish books, LyX has the most powerful features 
 for indexes and bibliographies.

Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.

Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.

And, no, I did not review LyX first.  I've been using Ventura
Publisher for more than twenty years.

LyX has its charms and its challenges, just like any other tool.

Finally, at this point, I am having no difficulty converting my
document from Ventura Publisher to LaTeX via LyX.  I'm not
always comfortable with using LyX but, it is quickly becoming
as effortless as is Ventura Publisher.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:38 PM
 To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: RE: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:
 
  LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I 
  want text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under 
  suspension, while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms 
  that have been suggested by others.
 
You can write your own class or style that overrides and 
 changes the defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., 
 Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and the theses classes of many 
 universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how you want it, 
 then you'll have consistent results from document to document 
 and you won't have to think about it again.

Ventura does the same thing, and you move these from document to
document, publication to publication.  They are called style sheets, and
can be quite extensive.  Clearly, this is a capability that is shared by
the tools, Ventura Publisher and LyX.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
  the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
 VP is first 
  and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
 including 
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
 and publish 
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
 publication of many 
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
 position of a 
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
  layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
 layout the text 
  with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 
On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because 
 in the 1970s and 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to 
 typeset mathematical formulae and symbols well. From what 
 I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly adhere to 
 this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
 The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of 
 assembly language to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro 
 system. LyX adds a GUI front end; I suppose to finish the 
 programming language analogy it's not like Visual Cobol, but 
 more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)
 
  Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain 
  only one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and 
 its kind 
  to contain separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher 
  level piece a document together, page by page, outputting 
 the image to 
  a PDF, or what have you?
 
Probably for the same reason that those who process words 
 write separate documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them 
 into a whole by using a master document.
 
 Rich

Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.


William,

  That's true. And different does not mean better or worse. I use several
text editors: joe (shell scripts, .conf files, default editor in pine and
slrn, quick little editing tasks), emacs (coding, including .c, .py, .html,
and .css), scribus (marketing brochures and flyers), and lyx (serious
writing of articles, reports, letters, proposals, slide presentations). I do
keep OO.o here for translating .doc files sent to me and -- on _very_ rare
occasions -- when I must send a document to a client or agency for them to
edit.

  Each tool has its purpose, and I appreciate the specialization because it
makes each outstanding within its designed limits.

Happy translating,

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
http://www.appl-ecosys.com Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Uwe Stöhr]

William R. Buckley schrieb:


Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.


I meant the glossaries.


As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.


Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be very similar to Ventura. The problem 
there was the bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of references, so you use databases 
to collect and insert them. But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so that 
sending a manuscript to different publishers is a nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography 
format style with a few mouse clicks.


What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography capabilities and that you can change 
every time the layout of the document. I can even take a document that I usually print in A4, set 
its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly ready to print document, becase LateX does the 
recalculations for me, including the image placements. This is useful when producing books as you 
don't always know the exact book page size while typesetting.



Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.


Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in different ways. LaTeX is 
only one of them.

regards Uwe

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:04 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 William R. Buckley schrieb:
 
  Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
 
 I meant the glossaries.
 
  As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura 
  Publisher handles these quite well.
 
 Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be 
 very similar to Ventura. The problem there was the 
 bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of 
 references, so you use databases to collect and insert them. 
 But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so 
 that sending a manuscript to different publishers is a 
 nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography format 
 style with a few mouse clicks.
 
 What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography 
 capabilities and that you can change every time the layout of 
 the document. I can even take a document that I usually print 
 in A4, set its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly 
 ready to print document, becase LateX does the recalculations 
 for me, including the image placements. This is useful when 
 producing books as you don't always know the exact book page 
 size while typesetting.
 
  Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient to 
  produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I 
 take it that 
  experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.
 
 Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in 
 different ways. LaTeX is only one of them.

I agree with the point that TeX has deep integration with bibliographic
stores, and that is not well served in Ventura Publisher.  But, for all
that has been incorporated within the publication, things get real easy.
Glossaries, lists of figures, lists of tables, cross-references, you name
it.

I don't really use all this power, since most of what I write are academic
publications.

The only complaint I have with Ventura Publisher is, well two complaints,
it does not output or input LaTeX, and Corel Corporation has effectively
abandoned the product.

In truth, much as I love Ventura Publisher, the lack of product development
on the part of Corel means that I must seek other tools.  LyX will probably
be the choice I make.  I am effectively there already.

 regards Uwe
 
 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:59 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 William R. Buckley wrote:
  On this note, add my pipe.
 
  If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
  could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
  keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
 typist), how 
  would this differ from WYSIWYG?
 

 Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the 
 document can be rendered in who knows how many different 
 formats simply by changing the document class. This is 
 similar in spirit to the separation of content and 
 presentation in XHTML/CSS, the semantic web, and all such 
 good things.

One would not expect that the layout would change between the
strokes of keys struck during textual input, for instance.  Hence,
as far as the user would be concerned (and where the LyX display
is configured so as to *roughly* represent the final output - see the
assertions of Mr. Litt), it would look just like the WYSIWYG system
that I like to use.  Visually, you would not be able to tell the
difference.

  LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is tantamount 
 to a LaTeX 
  processor, and if that is the case, why not just save the produced 
  image, instead of running LaTeX again to produce a file?
 

 See above.
 
  I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very 
 interesting 
  ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed knowledge of 
 La/TeX.  
  What I find missing is knobs.  I guess I have to get used 
 to working 
  without knobs.  Ventura Publisher has lots of knobs to its user 
  interface, really powerful knobs.
 

 You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing 
 houses use it all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to 
 format a magazine with it. 
 It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing 
 you're looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it 
 would be silly to criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like 
 criticizing a hammer because it doesn't help you with screws.

All critical review is of value.  And, the passionate response you
give here is well understood.  Yet, I did not complain about LyX.
I am merely comparing LyX with another tool that I know well, and
noting the variations between them.  I do not expect that any change
to LyX will come from my commentary.  Still, it is likely that others
will appreciate the different point of view, one with differences from
those others which may occasion this list.

I do agree strongly that one asks the tool how it wants to be used.
No use trying to apply a hammer to a screw.

  One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
  the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
 VP is first 
  and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
 including 
  multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
 and publish 
  collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
 publication of many 
  thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
 position of a 
  period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
  layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
 layout the text 
  with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
 

 No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that 
 ground. We just think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds 
 of applications, including book production---though probably 
 not coffeetable art book production. 
 As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and 
 the like with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the 
 fact the LaTeX prefers semantic markup makes it possible to 
 make major changes to presentation in an instant. You can 
 even render the file as Braille, and LaTeX will handle the 
 conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.
 
 LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have 
 to know how to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of 
 that, though it will help you with some. LyX is for writers, 
 not page layout folks. You want to do page layout with LyX, 
 then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you should do this 
 only when you are completely done writing and (b) you might 
 as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at 
 that point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may 
 involve tweaking LaTeX class files, and that has nothing to 
 do with LyX.
 
  LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly language of 
  words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think that LyX can 
 be every bit 
  as WYSIWYG as Ventura Publisher, without sacrificing the 
 WYSIWYM ethos 
  of La/TeX.
 

 But, first, you're assuming that there's one intended output 
 format, and that just isn't always true. And more 

Multiple ouotput formats are easily supported in Ventura, just
change the stylesheet

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
don't speak for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least 
lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the 
process of writing. The separation of content from 
presentation revolutionized the process of writing for me. 
But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop 
fussing so much over details of presentation, at least until 
you're done writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when 
the whole page may change?



This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the text,
then later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use
Ventura like a typewriter, just like other writers.

  
But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If you're 
writing, why on earth would you be using a program capable of what 
Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.


I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something the likes of 
BibTeX.


rh

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

Is it really overkill to drive a Mercedes versus a Fiat?

And, the formatting details are not distracting, except
for distractible minds.

And, no, I do not suggest that the bibliography feature
is as capable as BibTeX.  Indeed, this is perhaps my
biggest complaint with Ventura Publisher, that other
very capable tools are excluded from the suite.  I do
very much wish that TeX were one of those supported
tools.  VP was last copyrighted in 2002.

wrb 

 -Original Message-
 From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:51 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 
  importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
 don't speak 
  for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think 
  that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the process of 
 writing. The 
  separation of content from presentation revolutionized the 
 process of 
  writing for me.
  But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop fussing so 
  much over details of presentation, at least until you're done 
  writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when the whole page may 
  change?
  
 
  This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the 
 text, then 
  later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use 
 Ventura like a 
  typewriter, just like other writers.
 

 But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If 
 you're writing, why on earth would you be using a program 
 capable of what Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.
 
 I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
 Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something 
 the likes of BibTeX.
 
 rh
 
 
 

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
Rich Shepard wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> 
> > WYSIWYG promise?
> 
> Andre',
> 
>I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.

Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
LyX are perfect for that!

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Steve Litt]

On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
>
> Rich Shepard wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > WYSIWYG promise?
> >
> > Andre',
> >
> >I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
>
> Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
> who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
> than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
> LyX are perfect for that!

Oh oh, here it goes again :-)

In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" marketing of LyX. 
Why can't just say things like the following:

* Our output looks much better
* Our output follows true typographic convention by default
* Our page numbers are always accurate
* Our two column stuff comes out right
* Our chapters begin on the correct page
* Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
* Our program is much more stable than most word processors
* Our native format is easy to parse text
* Our user interface is fast for the touch typist

I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to 
prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

SteveT 

Steve Litt
Books written in LyX:
Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
Troubleshooting: Just the Facts

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Pavel Sanda]

> In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content in LyX 
> looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, 
> margins all look similar to the eventual output. 

but these visual elements are there to convey _meanings_ not visual appearance
in resulting pdf.

> For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old WordPerfect 5.1. 
> Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the printed page has 
> typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even 
> show graphics -- it just had a 1 character white block to represent the 
> graphic. Now THAT was non-WYSIWYG.

but this lack of WYSIWYM was not caused by the fact that they had different
vision about word processing. it simply was not easy to create WYSIWYG
under MS DOS or what was the original platform.

> I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" marketing of 
> LyX. 

to me it has nothing to do with the marketing. its just clear statement of the 
philosophy and the direction.

> Why can't just say things like the following:

yes, the lines below were marketing advertisment. and on many points i can 
argue easily with you.
moreover, once you start doing such adverts there will be zilions of 
angry
people on list complaining that lyx does not do WYSIWYM or DTP stuff.

> I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to 
> prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.

then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

pavel

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[James Sutherland]

>> I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to
>> prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
> 
> then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
> WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.
> 

Agreed.  IMO, WYSIWYM embodies the intention of LyX very well.  It is
clearly not a WYSIWYG program like Word, Pages, WordPerfect, OpenOffice,
etc.  It is mainly a LaTeX front-end (and a VERY nice one at that)...

James

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:26 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> 
> > I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are confusing to 
> > prospective and new LyX users, and really don't make much sense.
> 
> then make some better explanation so that even newbies understand.
> WYSIWYM really makes sense once you understand.

And it actually comes across very well.  I recently had a new student
(newbie when it comes to LyX etc) start in my group.  I told her that
she would be writing in LyX or LaTeX (choice up to her).  She started
reading the LyX documentation and very soon came into my office to say
that she just loved the "what you mean" bit -- she had never heard
anything similar and it just totally clicked with her!

Anyway, back to writing real stuff... :)

cheers,
eric

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Eric S Fraga]

At Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:43:20 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> > Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is for people
> > who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that knows more
> > than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  And LaTeX or
> > LyX are perfect for that!
> 
> Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
> 
> In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX content
> in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. Typefaces, sizes,
> weights, slants, margins all look similar to the eventual output.

But these are part of what I "mean"...

In any case, it's the simple things that matter.  For instance, if I
make the window wider, the text reformats on screen so I can see more
paragraphs...  Do the same in a wysiwyg tool and all you get is more
empty space in your window.

But to each his own so if you want to think of LyX as wysiwyg, then so
be it!  The important thing to me is that LyX does the job so much
better than any other tool I use (except maybe emacs... ;-).

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions
about where I want text and graphics to be.  Well, let me
put this claim under suspension, while I test the various
alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been suggested
by others.

I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

wrb



> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Litt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:43 AM
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> On Wednesday 26 March 2008 05:22, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> > At Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:33:22 -0700 (PDT),
> >
> > Rich Shepard wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > > WYSIWYG promise?
> > >
> > > Andre',
> > >
> > >I hope not!! That's why there's AbiWord and OO.o.
> >
> > Exactly!  I sure don't want wysiwyg which, in my view, is 
> for people 
> > who want a glorified typewriter.  I want a typesetter that 
> knows more 
> > than I do about how to prepare documents that look good!  
> And LaTeX or 
> > LyX are perfect for that!
> 
> Oh oh, here it goes again :-)
> 
> In my opinion, LyX *is* WYSIWYG to a significant degree. LyX 
> content in LyX looks very much like its PDF output. 
> Typefaces, sizes, weights, slants, margins all look similar 
> to the eventual output. 
> 
> For something that really, truly isn't WYSIWYG, look at old 
> WordPerfect 5.1. 
> Everything's one size monofont in WordPerfect 5.1, but the 
> printed page has typefaces, slants, weights, sizes and the 
> like. WordPerfect 5.1 didn't even show graphics -- it just 
> had a 1 character white block to represent the graphic. Now 
> THAT was non-WYSIWYG.
> 
> I've never understood the "WYSIWYM" and "we are not WYSIWYG" 
> marketing of LyX. 
> Why can't just say things like the following:
> 
> * Our output looks much better
> * Our output follows true typographic convention by default
> * Our page numbers are always accurate
> * Our two column stuff comes out right
> * Our chapters begin on the correct page
> * Our figures are placed in pleasing places by default
> * Our program is much more stable than most word processors
> * Our native format is easy to parse text
> * Our user interface is fast for the touch typist
> 
> I think the "we're not WYSIWYG" and "WYSIWYM" slogans are 
> confusing to prospective and new LyX users, and really don't 
> make much sense.
> 
> SteveT 
> 
> Steve Litt
> Books written in LyX:
>   Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist
>   Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
>   Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
> 
> 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I want
text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under suspension,
while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms that have been
suggested by others.


  You can write your own class or style that overrides and changes the
defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and
the theses classes of many universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how
you want it, then you'll have consistent results from document to document
and you won't have to think about it again.


One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with the
limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  VP is first and
foremost intended for the production of large volumes, including
multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication of many
thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the position of a
period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will layout
the text for you.  If you want, it will let you layout the text with the
finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.


  On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because in the 1970s and
1980s there were no satisfactory tools to typeset mathematical formulae and
symbols well. From what I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly
adhere to this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of assembly language
to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro system. LyX adds a GUI front end;
I suppose to finish the programming language analogy it's not like Visual
Cobol, but more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)


Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain only
one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and its kind to contain
separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece a
document together, page by page, outputting the image to a PDF, or what
have you?


  Probably for the same reason that those who process words write separate
documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them into a whole by using a master
document.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

William R. Buckley wrote:

On this note, add my pipe.

If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such
that output could be produced and displayed within the
timeframe of a human keystroke (for fun, lets say you're
a really good 150 wpm typist), how would this differ from
WYSIWYG?

  
Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the document can be 
rendered in who knows how many different formats simply by changing the 
document class. This is similar in spirit to the separation of content 
and presentation in XHTML/CSS, the "semantic web", and all such good things.



LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is
tantamount to a LaTeX processor, and if that is the case,
why not just save the produced image, instead of running
LaTeX again to produce a file?

  

See above.


I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very
interesting ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed
knowledge of La/TeX.  What I find missing is knobs.  I
guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura
Publisher has lots of knobs to its user interface, really
powerful knobs.

  
You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing houses use it 
all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to format a magazine with it. 
It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing you're 
looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it would be silly to 
criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like criticizing a hammer because it 
doesn't help you with screws.



One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura
Publisher with the limitations associated with brochures
and pamphlets.  VP is first and foremost intended for the
production of large volumes, including multi-volume
books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit and publish
collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a publication
of many thousands of pages, all while allowing you to
adjust the position of a period at the end of a particular
sentence.  It you want, it will layout the text for you.  If
you want, it will let you layout the text with the finest
degree of control.  That choice is yours.

  
No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that ground. We just 
think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds of applications, including 
book production---though probably not coffeetable art book production. 
As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and the like 
with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the fact the LaTeX 
prefers semantic markup makes it possible to make major changes to 
presentation in an instant. You can even render the file as Braille, and 
LaTeX will handle the conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.


LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have to know how 
to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of that, though it will help 
you with some. LyX is for writers, not page layout folks. You want to do 
page layout with LyX, then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you 
should do this only when you are completely done writing and (b) you 
might as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at that 
point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may involve tweaking LaTeX 
class files, and that has nothing to do with LyX.



LyX clearly eases the burden of writing the *assembly
language of words* and that is a godsend to me.  I think
that LyX can be every bit as WYSIWYG as Ventura
Publisher, without sacrificing the WYSIWYM ethos of
La/TeX.

  
But, first, you're assuming that there's one intended output format, and 
that just isn't always true. And more importantly, none of us 
developers---I'd be shocked if I don't speak for all of us---want LyX to 
be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES 
with the process of writing. The separation of content from presentation 
revolutionized the process of writing for me. But you do have to get 
used to it and, well, just stop fussing so much over details of 
presentation, at least until you're done writing. Why mess with where a 
figure goes when the whole page may change?


Of course, if you're a page layout person, then that's different. But 
then LyX isn't your tool.



Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx
document contain only one LaTeX file?  Would it not
make sense for *box* and its kind to contain separately
TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher level piece
a document together, page by page, outputting the image
to a PDF, or what have you?

  
LyX doesn't contain LaTeX files at all. Rather, LyX files are in its own 
format, and they are exported to LaTeX as required for conversion, etc. 
You can even see paragraphs rendered on the fly if you View>Source. But 
yes, in a way, each LyX file is one LaTeX file. Still, boxes do contain 
what is effectively LaTeX code. And if you want to build a document from 
several LyX files, then you can use the Include and Input mechanisms to 
do that. The natural way to write a book in LyX is to have a file for 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 
> William R. Buckley schrieb:
> 
> > If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
> > could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
> > keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
> typist), how 
> > would this differ from WYSIWYG?
> 
> WYSIWYM only works when you trust the LaTeX machine to 
> produce the best possible output. This seems the problem you 
> habe. For the LyX users its THE advantage:
> You e.g. add a caption and you don't have to take care about 
> it later. When the publisher tells you later that you should 
> have italic captions, it is only one preamble entry away; 
> when you use another document class, the caption layout is 
> automatically changed according to the class rules. This is 
> very useful when you are writing for several publishing 
> companies. Most of the companies provide their own document 
> class, all you have to do in LyX is to use the document class 
> of your publisher and the text gets formatted as it should. 
> This would not be possible with WYSIWYG.
> 
> But anyway, the things you complain about are design things 
> of LaTeX, not LyX. LyX is a frontend to LaTeX to be able to 
> write texts without the need to learn LaTeX. The concept of 
> LaTeX has been proven to be THE choice for publishing 
> companies all over the world: Nearly all scientific stuff, 
> books as well as journals, are typeset using LaTeX (or 
> pdfTeX, omega, etc.), even when you send your text to them as 
> Word-file.
> 
> > What I find missing is knobs.  I
> > guess I have to get used to working without knobs.  Ventura 
> Publisher 
> > has lots of knobs to its user interface, really powerful knobs.
> 
> I don't know what exactly you are missing. LyX provides you 
> countless options and settings in all areas. But while 
> reading your post again, it seems that you decided to use 
> Ventura Publisher, before testing out LyX carefully. Many of 
> your questions are obsolete when you read LyX's Intro manual 
> and the Tutorial. The LyX UserGuide is a perfect document to 
> see what output can be produced and how it can be produced.
> But while comparing programs, can Ventura handle 
> nomenclatures, bilbiographies, and indexes? From all programs 
> I know to publish books, LyX has the most powerful features 
> for indexes and bibliographies.

Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.

Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.

And, no, I did not review LyX first.  I've been using Ventura
Publisher for more than twenty years.

LyX has its charms and its challenges, just like any other tool.

Finally, at this point, I am having no difficulty converting my
document from Ventura Publisher to LaTeX via LyX.  I'm not
always comfortable with using LyX but, it is quickly becoming
as effortless as is Ventura Publisher.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Rich Shepard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:38 PM
> To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: RE: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:
> 
> > LyX/LaTeX are not WYSIWYM because it makes decisions about where I 
> > want text and graphics to be. Well, let me put this claim under 
> > suspension, while I test the various alternative *frame* mechanisms 
> > that have been suggested by others.
> 
>You can write your own class or style that overrides and 
> changes the defaults. That's what many publishers (e.g., 
> Spriger-Verlag's monoclass, and the theses classes of many 
> universities) do. Make the output _exactly_ how you want it, 
> then you'll have consistent results from document to document 
> and you won't have to think about it again.

Ventura does the same thing, and you move these from document to
document, publication to publication.  They are called style sheets, and
can be quite extensive.  Clearly, this is a capability that is shared by
the tools, Ventura Publisher and LyX.

> > One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
> > the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
> VP is first 
> > and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
> including 
> > multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
> and publish 
> > collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
> publication of many 
> > thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
> position of a 
> > period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
> > layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
> layout the text 
> > with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
> 
>On the other hand, TeX was invented by Don Knuth because 
> in the 1970s and 1980s there were no satisfactory tools to 
> typeset mathematical formulae and symbols well. From what 
> I've heard and read, Word and PowerPoint slavishly adhere to 
> this practice. So, TeX was designed as a book typesetting system.
> The next year, Leslie Lamport brought it from the level of 
> assembly language to that of C by providing the LaTeX macro 
> system. LyX adds a GUI front end; I suppose to finish the 
> programming language analogy it's not like Visual Cobol, but 
> more like an IDE (java beans, perhaps?)
> 
> > Perhaps I express naïveté but, why does every .lyx document contain 
> > only one LaTeX file?  Would it not make sense for *box* and 
> its kind 
> > to contain separately TeXable source?  LyX could then at a higher 
> > level piece a document together, page by page, outputting 
> the image to 
> > a PDF, or what have you?
> 
>Probably for the same reason that those who process words 
> write separate documents (e.g., chapters) then assemble them 
> into a whole by using a master document.
> 
> Rich

Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.

wrb

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, William R. Buckley wrote:


Well, it is just a different tool, and learning the details will simply
take time.


William,

  That's true. And different does not mean better or worse. I use several
text editors: joe (shell scripts, .conf files, default editor in pine and
slrn, quick little editing tasks), emacs (coding, including .c, .py, .html,
and .css), scribus (marketing brochures and flyers), and lyx (serious
writing of articles, reports, letters, proposals, slide presentations). I do
keep OO.o here for translating .doc files sent to me and -- on _very_ rare
occasions -- when I must send a document to a client or agency for them to
edit.

  Each tool has its purpose, and I appreciate the specialization because it
makes each outstanding within its designed limits.

Happy translating,

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Uwe Stöhr]

William R. Buckley schrieb:


Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.


I meant the glossaries.


As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura
Publisher handles these quite well.


Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be very similar to Ventura. The problem 
there was the bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of references, so you use databases 
to collect and insert them. But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so that 
sending a manuscript to different publishers is a nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography 
format style with a few mouse clicks.


What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography capabilities and that you can change 
every time the layout of the document. I can even take a document that I usually print in A4, set 
its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly ready to print document, becase LateX does the 
recalculations for me, including the image placements. This is useful when producing books as you 
don't always know the exact book page size while typesetting.



Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient
to produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I take
it that experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.


Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in different ways. LaTeX is 
only one of them.

regards Uwe

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:04 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> William R. Buckley schrieb:
> 
> > Don't know what a *nomenclature* is with regard to publishing.
> 
> I meant the glossaries.
> 
> > As for the others, like bibliographies and indexes, yes, Ventura 
> > Publisher handles these quite well.
> 
> Interesting. I once tested out Framemaker which seems to be 
> very similar to Ventura. The problem there was the 
> bibliography: In scientific papers you have a lot of 
> references, so you use databases to collect and insert them. 
> But every publisher has its own bibliography format style, so 
> that sending a manuscript to different publishers is a 
> nightmare when you cannot change the bibliography format 
> style with a few mouse clicks.
> 
> What I like with LaTeX are its powerful math and bibliography 
> capabilities and that you can change every time the layout of 
> the document. I can even take a document that I usually print 
> in A4, set its page margin to A5 or whatever and get a nearly 
> ready to print document, becase LateX does the recalculations 
> for me, including the image placements. This is useful when 
> producing books as you don't always know the exact book page 
> size while typesetting.
> 
> > Like I suggested, Ventura Publisher would alone be sufficient to 
> > produce the Encyclopedia Britannica, and quickly so.  I 
> take it that 
> > experienced LyX users would say the same about LyX.
> 
> Of course you can reach the goal to typeset books in 
> different ways. LaTeX is only one of them.

I agree with the point that TeX has deep integration with bibliographic
stores, and that is not well served in Ventura Publisher.  But, for all
that has been incorporated within the publication, things get real easy.
Glossaries, lists of figures, lists of tables, cross-references, you name
it.

I don't really use all this power, since most of what I write are academic
publications.

The only complaint I have with Ventura Publisher is, well two complaints,
it does not output or input LaTeX, and Corel Corporation has effectively
abandoned the product.

In truth, much as I love Ventura Publisher, the lack of product development
on the part of Corel means that I must seek other tools.  LyX will probably
be the choice I make.  I am effectively there already.

> regards Uwe
> 
> 

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> William R. Buckley wrote:
> > On this note, add my pipe.
> >
> > If the speed with which LaTeX could operate were such that output 
> > could be produced and displayed within the timeframe of a human 
> > keystroke (for fun, lets say you're a really good 150 wpm 
> typist), how 
> > would this differ from WYSIWYG?
> >
> >   
> Because LyX contains SEMANTIC markup, which means the 
> document can be rendered in who knows how many different 
> formats simply by changing the document class. This is 
> similar in spirit to the separation of content and 
> presentation in XHTML/CSS, the "semantic web", and all such 
> good things.

One would not expect that the layout would change between the
strokes of keys struck during textual input, for instance.  Hence,
as far as the user would be concerned (and where the LyX display
is configured so as to *roughly* represent the final output - see the
assertions of Mr. Litt), it would look just like the WYSIWYG system
that I like to use.  Visually, you would not be able to tell the
difference.

> > LyX is not WYSIWYG, unless your display side is tantamount 
> to a LaTeX 
> > processor, and if that is the case, why not just save the produced 
> > image, instead of running LaTeX again to produce a file?
> >
> >   
> See above.
> 
> > I think the product is both, and yet lacking in some very 
> interesting 
> > ways, this view subject to my lack of detailed knowledge of 
> La/TeX.  
> > What I find missing is knobs.  I guess I have to get used 
> to working 
> > without knobs.  Ventura Publisher has lots of knobs to its user 
> > interface, really powerful knobs.
> >
> >   
> You CAN do almost anything with LaTeX. Major publishing 
> houses use it all the time. But I wouldn't want to try to 
> format a magazine with it. 
> It's not that kind of program. If that's the kind of thing 
> you're looking to do, then LyX is the wrong tool. But it 
> would be silly to criticize LyX/LaTeX for that. It's like 
> criticizing a hammer because it doesn't help you with screws.

All critical review is of value.  And, the passionate response you
give here is well understood.  Yet, I did not complain about LyX.
I am merely comparing LyX with another tool that I know well, and
noting the variations between them.  I do not expect that any change
to LyX will come from my commentary.  Still, it is likely that others
will appreciate the different point of view, one with differences from
those others which may occasion this list.

I do agree strongly that one asks the tool how it wants to be used.
No use trying to apply a hammer to a screw.

> > One point of decorum, please, do not confuse Ventura Publisher with 
> > the limitations associated with brochures and pamphlets.  
> VP is first 
> > and foremost intended for the production of large volumes, 
> including 
> > multi-volume books.  It is a dream tool for those who edit 
> and publish 
> > collections of essays.  To boot, it will handle a 
> publication of many 
> > thousands of pages, all while allowing you to adjust the 
> position of a 
> > period at the end of a particular sentence.  It you want, it will 
> > layout the text for you.  If you want, it will let you 
> layout the text 
> > with the finest degree of control.  That choice is yours.
> >
> >   
> No one was criticizing VP and related programs on that 
> ground. We just think LyX/LaTeX is better for certain kinds 
> of applications, including book production---though probably 
> not coffeetable art book production. 
> As Uwe mentioned, LaTeX handles bibliographies, indices, and 
> the like with a facility other programs sorely lack, and the 
> fact the LaTeX prefers semantic markup makes it possible to 
> make major changes to presentation in an instant. You can 
> even render the file as Braille, and LaTeX will handle the 
> conventions regarding emphasis and the like for you.
> 
> LaTeX too will allow nearly unlimited control. But you have 
> to know how to use it, and LyX won't help you with all of 
> that, though it will help you with some. LyX is for writers, 
> not page layout folks. You want to do page layout with LyX, 
> then you're in the land of LaTeX. But (a) you should do this 
> only when you are completely done writing and (b) you might 
> as well export to LaTeX and mess directly with the code at 
> that point. Or, again, much of what you want to do may 
> involve tweaking LaTeX class files, and that has

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[rgheck]

importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
don't speak for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least 
lots of us think that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the 
process of writing. The separation of content from 
presentation revolutionized the process of writing for me. 
But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop 
fussing so much over details of presentation, at least until 
you're done writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when 
the whole page may change?



This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the text,
then later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use
Ventura like a typewriter, just like other writers.

  
But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If you're 
writing, why on earth would you be using a program capable of what 
Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.


I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something the likes of 
BibTeX.


rh

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

Is it really overkill to drive a Mercedes versus a Fiat?

And, the formatting details are not distracting, except
for distractible minds.

And, no, I do not suggest that the bibliography feature
is as capable as BibTeX.  Indeed, this is perhaps my
biggest complaint with Ventura Publisher, that other
very capable tools are excluded from the suite.  I do
very much wish that TeX were one of those supported
tools.  VP was last copyrighted in 2002.

wrb 

> -Original Message-
> From: rgheck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> 
> >> importantly, none of us developers---I'd be shocked if I 
> don't speak 
> >> for all of us---want LyX to be WYSIWYG. At least lots of us think 
> >> that WYSISYM positively INTERFERES with the process of 
> writing. The 
> >> separation of content from presentation revolutionized the 
> process of 
> >> writing for me.
> >> But you do have to get used to it and, well, just stop fussing so 
> >> much over details of presentation, at least until you're done 
> >> writing. Why mess with where a figure goes when the whole page may 
> >> change?
> >> 
> >
> > This is exactly the process I use with Ventura.  Write the 
> text, then 
> > later, ususally much later, format the document.  I use 
> Ventura like a 
> > typewriter, just like other writers.
> >
> >   
> But that seems like using a bulldozer to drive a nail. If 
> you're writing, why on earth would you be using a program 
> capable of what Ventura can do? You're just asking for distraction.
> 
> I'll leave it to others to comment on bibliographies and the like. 
> Unless you wish to assert that Ventura integrates something 
> the likes of BibTeX.
> 
> rh
> 
> 
> 

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
 My experience, by using the complete install, about 105MBytes,
 is that the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version,
 so there may be some differences in the install process.  My
 problems are with the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
 Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to
 produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX directly
 but, that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed,
 LyX is now proving useful in the placement of figures ... though
 some difficulties remain.
 
 Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively
 improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably
 not far off.

WYSIWYG promise?

Andre'

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 See Manfred Mertens post.

wrb

 -Original Message-
 From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
 To: William R. Buckley
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
  My experience, by using the complete install, about 
 105MBytes, is that 
  the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version, 
 so there 
  may be some differences in the install process.  My 
 problems are with 
  the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
  Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to 
  produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX 
 directly but, 
  that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed, LyX is now 
  proving useful in the placement of figures ... though some 
  difficulties remain.
  
  Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively 
  improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably not far off.
 
 WYSIWYG promise?
 
 Andre'
 
 

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
 My experience, by using the complete install, about 105MBytes,
 is that the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version,
 so there may be some differences in the install process.  My
 problems are with the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
 Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to
 produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX directly
 but, that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed,
 LyX is now proving useful in the placement of figures ... though
 some difficulties remain.
 
 Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively
 improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably
 not far off.

WYSIWYG promise?

Andre'

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 See Manfred Mertens post.

wrb

 -Original Message-
 From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
 To: William R. Buckley
 Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
 Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
 
 On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
  My experience, by using the complete install, about 
 105MBytes, is that 
  the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version, 
 so there 
  may be some differences in the install process.  My 
 problems are with 
  the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
  Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to 
  produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX 
 directly but, 
  that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed, LyX is now 
  proving useful in the placement of figures ... though some 
  difficulties remain.
  
  Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively 
  improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably not far off.
 
 WYSIWYG promise?
 
 Andre'
 
 

Re: WRB - Installing LyX

[Andre Poenitz]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
> My experience, by using the complete install, about 105MBytes,
> is that the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version,
> so there may be some differences in the install process.  My
> problems are with the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
> Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to
> produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX directly
> but, that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed,
> LyX is now proving useful in the placement of figures ... though
> some difficulties remain.
> 
> Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively
> improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably
> not far off.

WYSIWYG promise?

Andre'

RE: WRB - Installing LyX

[William R. Buckley]

 See Manfred Mertens post.

wrb

> -Original Message-
> From: Andre Poenitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
> To: William R. Buckley
> Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
> Subject: Re: WRB - Installing LyX
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
> > My experience, by using the complete install, about 
> 105MBytes, is that 
> > the process is easy.  Of course, I use the Windows version, 
> so there 
> > may be some differences in the install process.  My 
> problems are with 
> > the details of LyX usage, not getting it to run.
> > Also, I could load the documentation .lyx files, and use them to 
> > produce PDFs.  I have obtained benefit by writing LaTeX 
> directly but, 
> > that does not mean that LyX provide no benefit.  Indeed, LyX is now 
> > proving useful in the placement of figures ... though some 
> > difficulties remain.
> > 
> > Bottom line - I think LyX is a fine idea, and an aggressively 
> > improving product, and the WYSIWYG promise is probably not far off.
> 
> WYSIWYG promise?
> 
> Andre'
> 
>