Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!jtc
From: jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: LaTeX for Xenix (posting sources here is a no-no)
Message-ID: <193@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 90 16:09:15 GMT
References: <1990Feb15.233047.1867@metro.ucc.su.oz.au> <10306@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: jtc@van-bc.UUCP (J.T. Conklin)
Organization: Wimsey Associates
Lines: 26

In article <10306@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>glenn@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (G Geers) wrote:
>> Well here it is. The next 14 postings contain the source...
>
>I am all in favor of posting source code, but how about posting it to
>the right newsgroup?  This is a discussion group, not a source group.
>Why does that make a difference, you ask.  I'm glad you asked. . .

I'm a TeXnician at heart, and usually am estatic when it comes to
exposing people to TeX, but I wholeheartedly agree that the posting of
the TeX source was inapropriate.

Furthermore, none of the .sty, .fmt, etc files were included.  It was
suggested that they should be obtained from the Unix-TeX distribution
via anonymous ftp.  Well, if you're going to ftp Unix-TeX, you might
as well compile the sources from there.

I've been running TeX for about six months.  There are no Xenix
patches needed.  The posting of TeX to comp.unix.xenix was
unnecessary.

    --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
	...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc, jtc@wimsey.bc.ca