Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!rstevens
From: rstevens@noao.edu (Rich Stevens)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Where does one get ditroff?
Message-ID: <1990Dec13.144818.20785@noao.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 90 14:48:18 GMT
References: <28627@usc> <1990Dec5.091906.26766@hemel.bull.co.uk> <1710@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ
Lines: 11

In article <1710@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wargaski@nwu.edu writes:
>I believe the folks over at GNU have come up with `groff'.  The output
>isn't nearly as good as ditroff, though . . .

Uh, just what are you basing this claim on ??  I've used both (DWB 2.0,
not 3.1) and believe me, I think the groff output is better.  It does
kerning and has better hyphenation, for example.  If you go beyond
"ditroff" and look at the whole package (pic, tbl, etc.) things get
even better.

	Rich Stevens