Re: The Problems of TeX

On 2008-02-22, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

I don't see that many people are in a position to install a TeX
installation from scratch these days in any case - every one that I've
looked at has needed a stone-cold TeX+computer expert to set up.

I used to be a tetex user, until TE stopped maintaining it. I found
it straightforward to install texlive 2007 on a Linux system. It was
certainly more effort than installing the tetex packages for my
distribution of choice (Slackware), but it wasn't too hard. Note that
I had never done any non-trivial configuration of TeX distributions
before, so I didn't fall into the "tex installation/configuration
wizard" category. And I still don't.

<shrug> But you do fall into the category of `Unix expert', at a guess?

Humility prevents me from responding. :-)
And please, the word is "wizard". :-)

But seriously, I didn't think my Unix expertise (or lack thereof)
really came into the picture here, although I suppose someone who
knows almost nothing about Unix/Linux (as opposed to someone who has
reached "basic user" status) could have had to think a bit to install
it. Seriously, if you have a Linux system at hand, why not give it a
try and let me know? I realize that it might be a bit time consuming,
but I would be interested to know if you find that as difficult as
your trials and tribulations with your Mac.

As I recall, the only confusing issue was when I had a choice about
installing the whole thing or a subset. And I agree with your theme
there... it was not at all clear to me exactly what pieces I needed,
and how I would suffer later if I didn't install everything. So I
installed it all, which does take a fair bit of disk space.

I'm not a TeX installation/configuration wizard and never have been -
but I could install and configure OzTeX and CMacTeX without bother (or
without much bother in the case of CMacTeX, which is closer to the Unix
world than OzTeX0.
I did the basic configuration (setting my paper size) without any
hassle, and I suspect most people would easily be able to do the same
with a quick web search, as soon as they realized the paper size
wasn't what they want.

I could not do the same with MacTeX - it was impossible to do without
lots of expert assistance, much of it very grudgingly given because the
experts clearly didn't want me to learn how to subvert their ideas for
what I should be doing...
Sorry to hear that. I find the process of installing software on a
Mac very mysterious, but that is possibly because I've only tried to
do it once.

(GW? What do those letters mean? I have no idea)
Who said "GW"?

So: I would say that the selection and installation of the TeX system
depends on having a TeX expert who's also an expert in the host computer
system to hand. The normal user cannot exercise a choice in this area.
Maybe that is the case in the MacOS world, I dunno. But honestly I
don't think it is for Linux.
If you're a Unix expert (and it sounds like you are), then you'll have
no trouble.
I'm going to disagree with you there, and by doing so will agree with
some of the points you have made throughout this thread... Really, I
don't think that one needs much Unix expertise to install (the
complete) texlive 2007 on a Linux system. However, I will agree that
knowing how to add some things to the system (which I presume is your
issue) is a bit of a black art. Being a plain tex user, I don't need
to add/update latex packages, and the one time I added fonts they came
with explicit directions on exactly what to do. To me, the process of
updating things in one's tex distribution seems gratuitously complex,
but I say that from my position of "tex user", not "tex system/tool
implementer" or "tex package implementer".

But... installing (the entire) texlive2007 was pretty straightforward.

Most people /can't/ learn to use Emacs, AUCTeX, and so on -
I've tried to learn how to use Emacs+AUCTeX from the supplied
documentation, and I have failed. Emacs documentation is, on its own,
impossible for a normal person to get anywhere with as far as I can
tell. This is the big problem with a lot of Unix-side software:
documentation that is designed to exclude.
I think that is harsh to the point of inaccuracy.
Yes, it's inaccurate, but only because I'm being far too polite and
gentle.
:-)

The *raw* opinion I have on the subject of `typical Unix-style
documentation' is - umm, different. You've got the toned-down,
filtered opinion - my public lie on the subject.

Look, it's perfectly obvious that Unix documentation is written on the
basis of `If you don't understand this stuff, you shouldn't be fiddling
with it'. It's also obvious that Unix documentation is mostly written
by heavy, heavy hackers who have no idea how to communicate with normal
human beings, no idea what learning requirements normal human beings
have, no idea how to assess the quality of their documentation, and
generally no interest at all in making their documentation *useful*.

Possibly you are familiar with research results which indicate that
different people like different types of reading material? Some
people prefer documentation or descriptions that go on in great detail
with many examples, and other people like documentation that is terse.
I don't think you should categorize one group as "normal".

Typical Unix documentation is useful to people who are looking for
tersely-written material. However, IMHO it is too terse for someone
starting from square one, and such people would really want some
verbose material or a helping hand.

I would not be surprised that if you take any group of people (e.g.,
Unix hackers) they might tend toward similarity in some personality
traits. And perhaps the preference for terse documentation is such a
trait common to Unix hackers. But I don't think that writing for
people with similar learning styles is "no interest at all in making
their documentation *useful*.". I'd say it is "no interest in making
their documentation useful for people who like verbosity". Those are
two different puppies.

Clearly quite a lot of Unix documentation is written with great care
and attention to detail - so the authors do care about *something*,
but it's not `making the documentation useful for others', whatever
they're playing at.
I really don't think that is the case.

I would say that a lot of Unix docs are designed to be terse and
not beginner-friendly. (And yes, I agree that is a problem.) But
I seriously doubt that many (or any) documentation writers actually
design their docs to exclude people.
<puzzled> But `terse and not beginner friendly' is equivalent to
`designed to exclude'.
No it isn't. It is "not designed to include everyone", which is
considerably different.

You're not making any sense here, I'm afraid.
Well, perhaps not to you on my first try. Is my second try more
lucid? If not, perhaps I am not writing well, but perhaps my writing
is poorly matched to your reading/learning style.

I believe they just don't make the effort to make the
documentation more inclusive.
The documentation is written so that only existing Unix experts who
already `know it all' (more or less) can use it.
An exaggeration, but valid nonetheless for much documentation. But
then you can see how it would be well-suited to such people, who might
not like to wade through chapters of excessive verbiage hunting for
the few facts they are not already in possession of.

That's a policy which excludes almost everything - and it's deliberate.
Well, maybe, but as someone who has been using Unix and Unix-like
systems for most of the last 28 years, I've never seen any evidence
that there is any deliberate exclusion policy. Maybe I didn't get the
memo :-)

(Yeah, I've looked at the AUCTeX docs, and I must admit I didn't see a
whole lot there for plain TeX users, notwithstanding the advertising
that says it is useful for plain TeX. Intentional exclusion for plain
TeX users? I doubt it, just not a major interest for people
contributing to AUCTeX. Or maybe I didn't spend enough time looking.)

I've looked at the AUCTeX docs. They're one reason I've never tried
to use Emacs seriously in recent years.
You can happily edit TeX files with emacs without auctex, I do it
almost every day.
I've only ever been able to learn how to use a specific mode in
Emacs by following instructions from a human being - Emacs `help'
has never helped me learn how to use the features of a mode (the
standard Unix `documentation written for experts only' problem
again).

When I lost access to a live-in Unix sysadmin (long time ago, when a
student), that was `it' for me and Emacs, really. Its documentation
makes it very hard for someone to learn to use who doesn't have a
human expert to hand.
I agree. But since you can use emacs on a wide variety of platforms,
I don't think you should tie "unix" and "emacs" too closely together.
A lot of unix sysadmins belong to the church of vi, and see emacs as
something very unholy.

I've never been able to learn anything about `Unix-related issues'
from the documentation alone - always, always, always in the case of
Unix-related anything, I need to ask questions of people because
Unix documentation is - pretty much universally - *meant* to be
incomprehensible to non-initiates. I stand by my claim that is
quite deliberate.
I'd be interested in non-speculatory proof of that :-)

Cheers.
Jim
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Problems of TeX
    ... the user already knows about TeX and friends. ... Documentation is poor, ... I don't see that many people are in a position to install a TeX ... But you do fall into the category of `Unix expert', ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: The Problems of TeX
    ... I had never done any non-trivial configuration of TeX distributions ... But you do fall into the category of `Unix expert', ... because you have learnt how to use the documentation. ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: The Problems of TeX
    ... I had never done any non-trivial configuration of TeX distributions ... But you do fall into the category of `Unix expert', ... because you have learnt how to use the documentation. ... neophytes have succeeded in installing and then productively using ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: The Problems of TeX
    ... I had never done any non-trivial configuration of TeX distributions ... But you do fall into the category of `Unix expert', ... because you have learnt how to use the documentation. ... Linux is an unstable mess that you can't learn about without inhabiting ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: TeX and friends
    ... There is a core of a Unix OS in the foundations, ... which does of course mean that it's easy to write a nice integrated GUI ... but what about when you can't write any documentation at all ... the source code is ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)