Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!rti!dg-rtp!matrx!drd!d.cs.okstate.edu!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ads.com!sparkyfs!zwicky Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop,mail.framers Subject: Re: Any good WYSIWIG desktop publishing software on UNIX Workstations? Message-ID: <1990Jul11.194638.8506@Matrix.COM> Date: 10 Jul 90 21:15:16 GMT References: <4662.647633645@ics.uci.edu> <14694@know.pws.bull.com> Sender: mcnc!tusun2.mcs.utulsa.edu!framers-request Reply-To: mcnc!drd!pterodactyl.itstd.sri.com!zwicky (Elizabeth Zwicky) Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Lines: 48 Approved: Mail_Input@Matrix.COM Return-Path: X-Received: by DRD.Com (4.0/DRD-4.1) Precedence: bulk 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