Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ads.com!sparkyfs!zwicky
From: zwicky@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Any good WYSIWIG desktop publishing software on UNIX Workstations?
Message-ID: <32412@sparkyfs.istc.sri.com>
Date: 10 Jul 90 21:15:16 GMT
References: <4662.647633645@ics.uci.edu> <14694@know.pws.bull.com>
Reply-To: zwicky@pterodactyl.itstd.sri.com.UUCP (Elizabeth Zwicky)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Lines: 48

In article <14694@know.pws.bull.com> mwolf@pws.bull.com (Mary-Anne Wolf) writes:
>I hear that Interleaf is especially good for creating structured documents
>in a particular format (e.g. repair manuals for related kinds of aircraft),
>and that they also have the beginnings of an emacs-like LISP customization
>and extension language.  

Interleaf does deal OK with structured documents, although not as well
as I would like, coming from LaTeX (I want structure and layout
separately, damn it). 

They have LISP, not merely the beginnings of an extension language.
They have the beginnings of a macro facility, however.

>If I remember right, they also provide an iconic
>desktop which can make the filenames on a short-filename system seem
>longer.

They provide their own, propietary, incompatible window system with
iconic desktop. It has 18 different cursors, and menus are heavily
dependent on location; it believes in file types (including no less
than three concepts equivalent to "directory") and it indicates them
via extensions.  Thus it will make the filenames on a short-filename
system seem even shorter. It believes in extensions solely, ignoring
magic numbers, which allows you to crash it several interesting ways.

Interleaf is very powerful; it is also a) slow b) unreliable c) a
resource hod d) expensive e) unwilling to work and play well with
others and f) liable to drive system administrators to distraction. It
is, in my opinion, 10% better than Frame; it is also 700% more
expensive (for a full configuration - core omits almost all useful
features). We have produced a gorgeous, 7,000+ page document with it.
We survived, which is something of a recommendation. On the other hand,
it was an excruciating experience. (We also use Frame, although we
do not have as much experience with it.)

Of the two, Frame is a less painful experience. It is missing some
features, but they are not major problems. Frame also seems to have a
better attitude. I hate "Interleaf only costs $1,000!"* *(Exclusive of
kerning, cataloging, math, input filters, output filters, graphics,
and everything else that makes us better than Frame. Adding them may
increase your price to $14,000...)

Then again, I write my long documents in LaTeX, with conditional text
done with a pre-processor I wrote. (LaTeX is capable of conditionals,
but there are some particularly sick features I need for a book I'm
working on.)

	Elizabeth