Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!fernwood!apple!agate!skippy.berkeley.edu!cotner
From: cotner@skippy.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: TUG and TeX...
Message-ID: <1990Sep6.052818.11631@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 6 Sep 90 05:28:18 GMT
References: <9009051759.AA07088@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1990Sep5.230708.7798@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: cotner@skippy.berkeley.edu.UUCP ()
Organization: Math Dept., UC Berkeley
Lines: 31

In article <1990Sep5.230708.7798@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> kcb@hss.caltech.edu (KC Border) writes:
>In article <9009051759.AA07088@lilac.berkeley.edu> DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET writes:
>>
>>Selling TeX's is not an honest way to make money. While it's not in the
>>public domain, its source code is published, comes with excellent comments,
>>and is available in machine-readable form. It doesn't take a rocket
>>scientist to make a runnable TeX for MS-DOS, nor is it so hard to produce
>>DVITYPE-based device drivers (better yet, Beebe-based:). (Having tried this,
>>I know this is so.) (That's why there are so many TeX ports out there!)
>>
>
>Enough is enough, Dimitri. You've had your say. Now will you quit
>filling up this news group with your whining? Please.
>
>-- an innocent bystander
>kcb@hss.caltech.edu
>Kim C. Border
>kcb@hss.caltech.edu

I don't know if I agree with everything Dimitri says, but
he has raised some important questions.  I certainly wouldn't
call it whining.  I do know that I would be pretty upset had
I spent lots of money for something which is inferior to emTeX.
TUG should make the availability of emTeX clear to its members.
I don't care about placing blame, but emTeX is great and TUG
should say so.

Also innocent,

Carl Cotner
cotner@berkeley.math.edu