Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!sif.claremont.edu From: dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: TUG and TeX... Message-ID: <8273@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Date: 5 Sep 90 14:00:22 GMT Sender: news@jarthur.Claremont.EDU Reply-To: dhosek@sif.claremont.edu Organization: Harvey Mudd College Lines: 179 In article <9009040308.AA06677@lilac.berkeley.edu>, DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes... >Here are some ways in which these TeX sellers hurt our community: >* they rip off those ignorant of the existence of better alternatives. >People buy their TeX's instead of spending their computer budget on >something they really need. (Note that buyers of commercial TeXs are >ignorant / not too bright through no fault of theirs.) If someone spends the money to purchase, say Textures ($495) rather than getting a copy of OzTeX, what do they get for their money? Well for one thing, they can call up Blue Sky Research (a toll-free number, no less) and get help. For those people who aren't on the net, this is a kind of important thing. Personal TeX and Arbortext offer this service, and I'm sure other vendors do as well. I would not purchase software from any company that did _not_ offer phone support. (Support is a big issue, for many groups, which is why most companies are not using home-built computers running public domain software for everything.) >* they prevent the spread of TeX. People who've spent $2,000 on software >are less likely to give free copies to others. Well, I sure hope so. Duplicating commercial software and distributing it is a violation of international copyright law. >* they prevent programmers from releasing the results of their work into the >public domain. People are reluctant to make their programs publicly >available for fear that someone will start selling them; or at least they >distribute them without the source code. Actually, I think that programmers who release source-less software would release that software source-less under any circumstances, even without TeX vendors. I'm only aware of one programmer's rationale for an executable-only distribution and his reasoning was that he wanted to make sure that parallel versions of the software didn't emerge. >It's sad that TUGBoat is in effect aiding and abetting these dishonest and >unscrupulous individuals (who should be denounced and ostracized). I am >definitely not suggesting that there is a conscious conspiracy on the part >of TUGBoat to suppress the the truth about the availability of TeX for >MS-DOS. :) (I think I know the people involved too well to believe that.) >However, I have stated time and again that the large number of ads for >commercial MS-DOS TeX's, and simultaneous disappearance of all mentions of >free TeX's (the combination that gives a reader a totally false impression >about TeX's availability) look extremely improper and make everyone doubt >TUGBoat's credibility. I have raised these questions with Barbara Beeton and >with Alan Hoenig, and with all my deep respect and admiration for these >folks, I'm really not satisfied with their repsonses. >I suggest that TUGBoat should refuse to run ads for commercial TeX-related >products when equivalent products for the same platform can be had for free. >(An example of such a product would be the $450 WordPerfect-to-TeX >translator.) Such ads constitute only a small protion of TUGBoat ads. Let's see, TUGboat 11#1: TeXpic. This is a pic-like package for TeX. gpic also offers this capability. Can't keep that ad. TUG. I guess we'll let them advertise. Arbortext. They aren't offering any specific products but I think there are public domain equivalents to almost everything they sell. Better prevent them from advertising. VTeX. Don't know of any version of TeX that has the font capabilities of VTeX. (although, personally, I don't think the extended capabilities are that useful anyway.) We'll let them keep the ad, but only temporarily since the president of the company said something about releasing the font technology to the public domain at the TUG meeting. Capture. Takes HPGL and makes PK files out of it (I think that's the deal.) John McClaine mentioned some stuff that Texas A&M has, but I don't think any of it is for HPGL and Pat Wilcox's software is shareware (or is it). We'll let them keep it, but only if they go to half page ads. Personal TeX. I guess this will have to go. But they cqan keep the Fontware stuff (Bitstream font to PK conversion software). Type 2000. Typesetting service. We'll let them advertise. LAmS-TeX. Well, pieces of it are public domain, but I guess enough of it is not available freely that we can let them advertise. T2xxx drivers. Nope. Those are all available for free. AmSTeX and fonts. Hmm, the charge here is largely duplicating costs. Can they keep their ad Dimitri? TeX plus. That's out. Publishing Companion. (This is a $250 WP to TeX converter. Public Domain TeX. But they're charging! Is $92 too much for a tape of stuff one can FTP? Computer Composition Corporation. Typesetters again. TurboTeX. That'll have to go. AP-TeX fonts. Bitmap versions of the 35 basic PostScript fonts. I guess that can stay. TeX publishing Services. More typesetting DeskJet driver for TeX. Nope, there's already a PD version. Textures. Nope, they can use OzTeX. There goes half of TUG's advertising income. >Regarding the suggestion that TUGBoat is a volunteer effort, and is not >obligated to inform its readers about the existence of public-domain >software: I'd like to point out that I (and most readers) pay for TUGBoat; >in fact, I pay more for it than I pay for Newsweek, New York Magazine, or >Insight. :) I am very unhappy that it gives its readers a false impression >by publishing those ads (really intended for suckers who don't know any >better) and *not* tellings its readers that better alternatives exist; >that's a job very poorly done. I've told various people involved about my >concerns, now I'm posting this to a newsgroup, and if the situation doesn't >change, I'll just stop getting TUGBoat due to lack of credibility. Dimitri. They DO TELL READERS. How many times do I have to point out the articles? There could be more articles, yes, but somebody has to write them, c'est ne pas? I think the bigger fault lies in things like the review of TeX for the PC that only looked at PCTeX, $\mu$-TeX, CTeX and TurboTeX. Now for some comments on behalf of commercial versions of TeX. I've mentioned support already as being a big factor. It's more than just being able to call up the company. Have you ever seen the PCTeX manual? It's an outstanding presentation of how to use TeX. TurboTeX and the Northlake Software VMS TeX both come with excellant installation manuals. It's difficult to match that with something distributed for free on disk or FTP. Consider someone who hasn't clued in to the fact that there is a way to center text in Pagemaker (I don't know this for certain, but I'd imagine any package not supplying this feature would be quickly laughed off the market) and give them a bunch of files in ZIP format and tell them to get it running. Another thing on behalf of commercial vendors of TeX is that they have a tendency to enter new areas before the PD people (this isn't always the case, but is often enough to point out that it happens). Without the pioneering efforts of David Fuchs and Lance Carnes, people might be claiming that TeX can't be run on a microcomputer. Textures was the only TeX for the Macintosh for two years. Much of the current spread of TeX is due to the efforts of Addison-Wesley and Personal TeX. Blue Sky Research is trying to make TeX a player in the graphic design realm of typography. Bob Harris of Micro Programs has brought TeX to the world of Kennel Clubs and is continually seeking out new markets. You complained (in a section that I cut out) that the people you talked to perceived TeX as being an expensive system... without the commercial vendors, I claim they wouldn't even know TeX existed (or if they did, would think of it as some Unix thing like troff). Instead of saying that you're going to cancel your membership and asking TUG to not carry advertising, let's hear some practical suggestions. What should TUG do to promote public domain TeX? All I see in your note is suggestions that commercial vendors not be allowed to advertise. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info