Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!attctc!wnp
From: wnp@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Wolf Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <8613@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US>
Date: 11 Jul 89 13:33:14 GMT
References: <10507@smoke.BRL.MIL> <268@arnor.UUCP>
Reply-To: wnp@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Wolf Paul)
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 27

In article <268@arnor.UUCP> uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) writes:
>From article <10507@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
>> If you have the tools and know how to use them
>> my opinion is that the standard UNIX approach beats WYSIWYG hands down.
>
>It doesn't seem to work for end users at all, and some programmers (as I
>noticed) also don't reject additional convenient tools, no matter - can
>the job be done with conventional tools or not.

It doesn't work for endusers because the sysadmin isn't doing his job.

It took me all of fifteen minutes to write a shell script tieing  together
vi and troff so as to produce a word processor my wife feels comfortable with.
And she's no hacker.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools even if they are not part
of the standard UNIX environment -- the problem is with your tone of poo-pooing
those who feel that the standard UNIX tools are adequate.  It likely takes as
much work to set up a DOS-style wordprocessor on a UNIX system as it does to
set up troff fonts, so your preference is not intrinsically better or more
intelligent than sticking with UNIX tools.

-- 
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP:   {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp
DOMAIN: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com
        NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc".