Re: TeX

Re: TeX

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> Based on the man pages, it looks like 2ed shipped with it:

Oh, it might have.  Two decades ago ... my memory is a bit fuzzy.

I have the 2ed sources, but they are on an ATA disk that stopped spinning 
up a few years ago, so I can't check.

But 20 years later, there is no TeX, so the manpages should be updated.

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Steve Simon]

why mot have tex(1) manpage which states that rex is not included by default but gives a weblink for a recommended  tex package, e.g. kertex, which is tested on an9.

this manpage would then be overwritten by the tex installation.

everyone happy (unlikely)

-Steve


On 14 Feb 2018, at 01:59, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> wrote:

>> Based on the man pages, it looks like 2ed shipped with it:
> 
> Oh, it might have.  Two decades ago ... my memory is a bit fuzzy.
> 
> I have the 2ed sources, but they are on an ATA disk that stopped spinning up a few years ago, so I can't check.
> 
> But 20 years later, there is no TeX, so the manpages should be updated.

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Matthew Veety]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 09:15:25 Steve Simon wrote:
> why mot have tex(1) manpage which states that rex is not included by default
> but gives a weblink for a recommended  tex package, e.g. kertex, which is
> tested on an9.
> 
> this manpage would then be overwritten by the tex installation.
> 
> everyone happy (unlikely)
> 
> -Steve

If someone makes a port for some TeX package that does this I would be okay 
with it. Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it, the references 
really just should be nuked. If a package doesn't ship with 9front it 
shouldn't be in they system's manpages.

-- 
Veety

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Steve Simon]

but someone did, kertex!


> On 18 Feb 2018, at 06:55, Matthew Veety <mveety@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 09:15:25 Steve Simon wrote:
>> why mot have tex(1) manpage which states that rex is not included by default
>> but gives a weblink for a recommended  tex package, e.g. kertex, which is
>> tested on an9.
>> 
>> this manpage would then be overwritten by the tex installation.
>> 
>> everyone happy (unlikely)
>> 
>> -Steve
> 
> If someone makes a port for some TeX package that does this I would be okay 
> with it. Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it, the references 
> really just should be nuked. If a package doesn't ship with 9front it 
> shouldn't be in they system's manpages.
> 
> -- 
> Veety

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[hiro]

> Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it

What entitles you to think that?

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Steve Simon]

do i need some form of entitlement to think?

i always regarded myself as empowered to think anything i like, by virtue of my existence as a sentient being.. 

unless you are telling me this is all a nightmare, and in the real world plan9 is the dominant operating system, following linus and bill’s acceptance of its clear superiority.

who knows, existentialism is hard to disprove.

-Steve


On 18 Feb 2018, at 14:12, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it
> 
> What entitles you to think that?

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Sean Hinchee]

I started this mess and I'm sorry for that. Although it's not perfect, I 
took the package kurt linked (tex.iso.bz2) and have adjusted the build a 
bit and it is now stuffed in ports. Like steve said, there is also kertex.

Cheers,
Sean


On 02/18/2018 06:04 AM, Steve Simon wrote:
> but someone did, kertex!
> 
> 
>> On 18 Feb 2018, at 06:55, Matthew Veety <mveety@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 09:15:25 Steve Simon wrote:
>>> why mot have tex(1) manpage which states that rex is not included by default
>>> but gives a weblink for a recommended  tex package, e.g. kertex, which is
>>> tested on an9.
>>>
>>> this manpage would then be overwritten by the tex installation.
>>>
>>> everyone happy (unlikely)
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> If someone makes a port for some TeX package that does this I would be okay
>> with it. Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it, the references
>> really just should be nuked. If a package doesn't ship with 9front it
>> shouldn't be in they system's manpages.
>>
>> -- 
>> Veety
> 

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Matthew Veety]

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:04:13 Steve Simon wrote:
> but someone did, kertex!
> 
> > On 18 Feb 2018, at 06:55, Matthew Veety <mveety@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 09:15:25 Steve Simon wrote:
> >> why mot have tex(1) manpage which states that rex is not included by
> >> default but gives a weblink for a recommended  tex package, e.g. kertex,
> >> which is tested on an9.
> >> 
> >> this manpage would then be overwritten by the tex installation.
> >> 
> >> everyone happy (unlikely)
> >> 
> >> -Steve
> > 
> > If someone makes a port for some TeX package that does this I would be
> > okay
> > with it. Knowing that certainly won't happen unless I do it, the
> > references
> > really just should be nuked. If a package doesn't ship with 9front it
> > shouldn't be in they system's manpages.

I mean added to the ports tree.

-- 
Veety

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Julius Schmidt wrote:
> I have a feeling this is becoming the largest thread in the history of 
> this list, illustrating the principle that the importance of a change is 
> inversely proportional to the amount of discussion it creates.

I very very nearly added my bit yesterday. Glad I didn't.
Oh wait, I'm doing it now.

> 
> To hypocritically add my two cents:
> 
> To me the cryptic references to tex(1) have been one of those Plan 9 
> things you stumble upon when you first play with the OS, like the fact 
> that copying is called "snarf". It's confusing as hell but eventually you 
> just accept it as it is.

I briefly wanted to jump on the bandwagon of zealously removing all 
unnecessary confusion, "because necessary things are confusing 
enough already", but then I remembered that neither of these things 
ever confused me for very long at all. I don't see the problem.

These days, I try to fight urges to tidy up all the little things like this, 
because a lot of the tidying up does no real good and some of it is 
actually harmful.

> 
> Hence I'm opposed to removing the references.
> 
> If this issue had *any* technical relevance behind it, I might reconsider,
> but it does not.
> 
> Maybe we should just copy over emacs(1).
> 
> aiju
> 
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, sl@stanleylieber.com wrote:
> 
> >> do i need some form of entitlement to think?
> >
> > This has been debated in academia for decades.  To some extent,
> > privilege is the time and space to think.
> >
> > sl
> >


-- 
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. -- Chaucer

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[Julius Schmidt]

I have a feeling this is becoming the largest thread in the history of 
this list, illustrating the principle that the importance of a change is 
inversely proportional to the amount of discussion it creates.

To hypocritically add my two cents:

To me the cryptic references to tex(1) have been one of those Plan 9 
things you stumble upon when you first play with the OS, like the fact 
that copying is called "snarf". It's confusing as hell but eventually you 
just accept it as it is.

Hence I'm opposed to removing the references.

If this issue had *any* technical relevance behind it, I might reconsider,
but it does not.

Maybe we should just copy over emacs(1).

aiju

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, sl@stanleylieber.com wrote:

>> do i need some form of entitlement to think?
>
> This has been debated in academia for decades.  To some extent,
> privilege is the time and space to think.
>
> sl
>

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[sl]

> do i need some form of entitlement to think?

This has been debated in academia for decades.  To some extent,
privilege is the time and space to think.

sl

Re: [9front] Re: TeX

[sl]

>> Based on the man pages, it looks like 2ed shipped with it:
> 
> Oh, it might have.  Two decades ago ... my memory is a bit fuzzy.
> 
> I have the 2ed sources, but they are on an ATA disk that stopped spinning 
> up a few years ago, so I can't check.
> 
> But 20 years later, there is no TeX, so the manpages should be updated.

I agree, I was just interested in tracking down where the references
came from.  2ed seems likely.

sl