Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsl!npn
From: npn@cbnewsl.att.com (nils-peter.nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: DWB V3.1 - is it as good as they say???
Summary: I'm interested in hearing as well
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.162911.10426@cbnewsl.att.com>
Date: 6 Feb 91 16:29:11 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.131646.15297@uqvax.cc.uq.oz.au>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26



I appreciate no one wants my opinion on this one (we develop
and support DWB 3.1) but we want to hear good and bad news
alike. The official USL position is the DWB is "unsupported"
but we are willing to help out however we can. To aid in
this, we've established an easy-to-remember internet address:
	dwb@mhpo.att.com
Caveats are: we're not responsible for groff, sqtroff, or a
bunch of other variations. Neither did we develop DWB 2.0,
although much of the code is the same (comes from Bell Labs
research).
We have several thousands of satisfied customers internally
in AT&T, and these represent a diversity of machine types
(VAX, Amdahl, 3B, 6386, Pyramid, Sun 3, Sun 4, even Cray),
a diversity of job function (professional writers, secretaries,
researchers, managers), and a diversity of demands (technical
memos, full length books, business letters, man pages) so
we have some confidence DWB will work in other environments
as well.
My apologies for the marketing hype, but I really do feel DWB
fills an important, otherwise unmet need-- a generic text
formatter that can be installed uniformly across virtually
all hardware platforms (as long as it's UNIX) that supports
the gamut of simple business letters to 1,500 page manuals
with pictures.