UKTeX V88 #08
DosTeX
Compressed files?
-Z-TAR-UUCP!
Pick a number...
Are we up to $10.24 yet?...
SliTeX
AMSFonts with DVILASER/HP
More probs
---------------------------------
Editor Peter Abbott
For non VMS users Laurie Benfield has created pcwritex.boo from pcwritex.arc
I have added the group tex.dvidis (preview on vaxstation). There has been
some minor changes in other areas of the Archive.
I shall be away from the University until April 11 and will only have
limited access to my mailbox so there will be some delay before the next
digest appears.
---------------------------------
Date: 22-MAR-1988 10:35:23
From: MARIA@UK.AC.PCL.MOLE
To: INFO-TEX@UK.AC.ASTON
A few issues ago I said that I had ordered DosTeX from Gary Beihl, announced
as a public domain TeX for PC's. I also said that if it looked all right I
would give a copy to the Aston archive.
Well my copy arrived and I am very pleased with it. Only executables are
supplied and they all work fine. The distribution comes with a set of basic
fonts in pk format, an Epson driver adapted from Nelson Beebe's dvixxx family
and latex and amstex and a set of style files and such like. It must be the
easiest public domain installation of TeX that I have ever met.
I compared it with the Common TeX virtex.exe supplied by Laurie Benfield with
his Hercules previewer, and although DosTeX needed more space to run (at least
599,100k so out go all your memory resident utilities) it handled bigger files
than Common TeX could. It also handled proper DOS pathnames which Common
TeX as supplied did not. Another plus, it fixes the Beebe dvieps problem
so that it handles segmented memory properly.
The hitch as far as Aston goes is that the following is Gary Beihl's policy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DosTeX COPYING POLICY
The redistribution policy for DosTeX is similiar to the Unix Tex
distribution:
Is it proper for a DosTeX recipient to give DosTeX to other sites?
It is to the advantage of a site to get the distribution from us rather
than from another site. There are three reasons for this. First, when
a site requests the distribution from us, we have a record of who has
the software. We are therefore able to contact them if we discover a
major bug or to announce new versions of the software or the macro
packages (this, incidentally, is also an excellent reason for every
site to join the TeX Users' Group). Stanford receives
a few telephone calls each week from people with out of date
versions of TeX which have developed problems. Since these people
have been out of touch with the more recent TeX developments, they've
been unaware of the previous detection and resolution of their
problems. Second, when a site contacts us for the DosTeX floppies,
they then know who to contact to report any problems they may run into.
Third, a site receiving floppies from us knows that they are
receiving a complete distribution.
On the other hand, it is undesirable and unnecessary to
require that multiple computers at the same location each request a
separate copy of the distribution, particularly when the same
individual is responsible for installing and maintaining TeX on each
of these machines. Additionally, our understanding of Stanford's
intentions is that the software is available to be freely
redistributed and that the copyright notices appearing on some of the
software are intended to prohibit misrepresentation of modified
versions of the software (as being, for example, TeX) not to restrict
distribution.
------------------------------------------------------------
Because of this I didn't like to just give a copy to the archive. I have
written and asked him for permission to do so. In the meantime you can
order a copy from
Electronetics, Incorporated
c/o Gary Beihl
119 Jack Rabbit Run
Round Rock
TX 78664
USA
They won't accept an order without cash and it costs US$85 for people outside
the USA (US$75 inside).
Maria Tuck
Polytechnic of Central London
---------------------------------
Date: 22-MAR-1988 11:42:41 GMT
From: SHW_F@UK.AC.LEICESTER.VAX
To: ABBOTT@UK.AC.ASTON
Dear Peter,
I have been trying to access some of the files in the subdirectories PAVEL
and have noticed that they are in a compressed format. I am
transfering them to a VAX. How do I uncompress them on the VAX.
I have tried in some of the readme files with out luck.
Thanks
Hugo Korwaser
+++Editor - Please see later article +++
---------------------------------
Date: 22 Mar 88 21:55:04 gmt
From: G.Toal @ uk.ac.edinburgh
Subject: -Z-TAR-UUCP!
To: abbottp@uk.ac.aston.mail
cc: phrkf@uk.ac.warwick.cu, gtoal@uk.co.acorn
Message-ID: <22 Mar 88 21:55:04 gmt 050434@EMAS-A>
Dear Peter,
I note that there has been the odd bit of trouble with binary
files on the archive; even (as Ian Stroud points out) text files
are not immune once they have been Compress-ed.
My feeling is that we could do away with binary files altogether,
if we had a reliable mechanism of converting ascii-text-only files
to and from binary at recipients sites.
Unix users gave up the binary battle a long time ago and decided
to use an ascii encoding for almost everything: the program is
called uuencode (there is a uudecode too...) and is simple enough that
between us we could get versions running on any system you care to
name.
The encoding used is 3 bytes -> 4 bytes, so file sizes expand
by 33%. This is the price of portability... If used in conjunction
with the Lempel-Zif compress program, though, the overhead usually
disappears. (You compress first, then uuencode it).
I can supply a public domain version of Compress in C to anyone
who needs one. I don't have a public-domain version of uuencode to
hand, but if Peter thinks it is worthwhile trying tha route I can
soon knock one up!
Another issue in this file-transfer business is the question of
aggregate file-transfers: on the system I use it is very tedious
indeed to fetch files one-by-one, especially if each one has to be
renamed on receipt (as most unix files do...). I would advocate
the use of unix tar format files to store larger numbers of small
files.
The format of a file to be fetched would then be
Group of files is locally 'tar'red into a single file.
(files can be text or binary)
File is then run through 'compress'.
Compressed file (now binary even if it wasn't before) is uuencoded.
so a file stored on the archive would have a name like
"iptex.tar.z.u" !
Does this scheme sound sensible to those of us out there who have
never seen a Unix nor ever want to? I should add that none of the
machines I run on are Unices, but I have access to all the filters
mentioned above. It would of course be easier if everyone had
a C compiler - if someone doesn't that might scupper the scheme...
The biggest stumbling block is that the tar-unpacking program
has to be written per machine; the other two can be fairly portable.
(Do any VMS-vaxes already have a Tar program?)
Comments please?
Graham.
---------------------------------
Received: from acorn by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK with UUCP id aa11232;
23 Mar 88 20:08 GMT
Received: by acorn.UUCP (5.51/4.7)
id AA26952; Wed, 23 Mar 88 17:33:56 GMT
Message-Id: <8803231733.AA26952@acorn.UUCP>
To: info-tex@uk.ac.aston
Cc: gtoal@uucp.acorn
Subject: Pick a number...
Date: Wed,23 Mar 1988.18:04:09
From: GToal@uucp.acorn
Hello fellow TeX-friends,
I'm in a bit of a quandry; can anyone offer advice:
I've almost completed a port of TeX to the Acorn Archimedes machines.
(Works on the big 440 machines; doesn't fit on the smaller 310 machines yet)
Once I have a clean system for release to the world, I'd like to supply
it to the TeX community. Although I'm in the software business, I'm
quite happy to follow the spirit of the TeX community and only charge
for copying and for the disks. (Although I am working on a previewer which
I might sell for cash at a later date...)
The trouble is, I have had a fair bit of exposure to the Acorn computing
world, and I know what happens when you release something like this on cheap:
people who have no more experience of computing than using very low-level
BBC Micro word processors hear about it and order a copy. They almost
certainly won't have a TeXbook and will quickly start hassling me for info
and support etc. - which is not what I want to offer - at least not for
the cost of a couple of floppy disks...
I just want to make it available to people like ourselves who know
what they are doing, or to committed new TeX users who have bought the book
and know what to expect.
Part of my worry is that there are so many disks to copy: although
a run-only system could, I think, be squeezed onto three or perhaps even two
disks, the complete source tape will take up over a dozen disks even when
everything has been through the compress utility... - and part of the TeX
distribution ethic is that you should make the source available to all who ask.
So my questions are, A) at what level is it legitimate to set a price for
this TeX port to discourage kiddies from ordering it just because it is
cheap (Media cost is about a pound per disk) - because I can well imagine
the level of orders being high enough to keep me copying disks for hours
every day...
and B) Is it acceptable to supply run-only binaries and thus cut down
the disk count, or am I obliged to supply all 12+ disks to everyone who
orders?
Graham.
P.S. How do companies like UniTeX get away with charging hundreds of
pounds for TeX? Do they claim to have written their own version completely
independently of Knuth's or do they claim they are charging only for the
device drivers they wrote themselves?
---------------------------------
Received: from acorn by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK with UUCP id aa11238;
23 Mar 88 20:08 GMT
Received: by acorn.UUCP (5.51/4.7)
id AA27643; Wed, 23 Mar 88 18:08:47 GMT
Message-Id: <8803231808.AA27643@acorn.UUCP>
To: info-tex@uk.ac.aston
Cc: gtoal@uucp.acorn
Subject: Are we up to $10.24 yet?...
Date: Wed,23 Mar 1988.18:40:37
From: GToal@uucp.acorn
To TeX implementors:
I have TeX 2.0 straight off the distribution tape of March 31 1986.
A) What is the current version of TeX (Web/Pascal - not C I mean)
B) Are there enough differences between version <X> and 2.0 to make
it worthwhile my bringing it up to date BEFORE I make the first
Acorn release?
C) If yes to (B), is there any way of getting the upgrades without either
ordering a new tape from Maria Code or having the entire tex.web
source mailed to me?
Graham.
---------------------------------
To: abbottp@uk.ac.aston.kirk
Subject: SliTeX
Date: 23 Mar 1988 17:40:33 GMT
From: john@uk.ac.york.minster
Message-ID: <swordfish.575142033@minster.york.ac.uk>
I have recently had need to build SliTeX for the first time; we are
a troff house, really. I'm using the splain.tex which came
with LaTeX 2.09 (Is that _very_ old?), and have had a little
difficulty. Can you help?
------------------------------------------------------
This is Common TeX, Version 2.0 (INITEX) 23 MAR 1988 17:23
**splain \dump
(./splain.tex Preloading the plain format: codes, registers,
\maxdimen=\dimen10
\hideskip=\skip10
\@centering=\skip11
\p@=\dimen11
\z@=\dimen12
\z@skip=\skip12
\voidb@x=\box10
parameters,
\smallskipamount=\skip13
\medskipamount=\skip14
\bigskipamount=\skip15
\normalbaselineskip=\skip16
\normallineskip=\skip17
\normallineskiplimit=\dimen13
\jot=\dimen14
\interdisplaylinepenalty=\count22
\interfootnotelinepenalty=\count23
macros,
\strutbox=\box11
\mscount=\count24
math definitions,
\rootbox=\box12
\p@renwd=\dimen15
\footins=\insert254
hyphenation (./hyphen.tex)
(./sfonts.tex fonts,
! Font \fourteenrm=amsss8 scaled 1728 not loadable: Metric (TFM) file no
t found.
<to be read again>
\relax
l.14 ...msss8 scaled \magstep 3
% roman
? x
No pages of output.
-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 88 14:07:29 GMT
From: PMT6FRD @ UK.AC.LEEDS.UCS.CMS1
To: info-tex @ UK.AC.ASTON
Subject: AMSFonts with DVILASER/HP
We have been attempting to add the AMSFonts from the archive to our
implementation of DVILASER/HP, so that we could use e.g. the Blackboard
Bold characters from the font MSYM, on our HP Laserjet plus; so far
without success. We seem to have transfered the files msym10.300pk
through msym10.746pk alright to our Systyme (running VMS), and then
via KERMIT transfered them to our PC Clone (an OPUS IV), then copied them
into the respective directories dpi300 through dpi746 and renamed them
all msym10.pk. (This to parallel the arrangement of all the other
computer modern fonts.) We also transfered the TFM files and put those
in the fonts directory.
We then added the line to the dvihp.fnt file in the dvilaser
directory which is supposed to tell dvihp what fonts are available;
but we still get error messages telling us that font msym10 is not
loaded, no .pk file can be opened.
Can anyone tell us what we did wrong? The files came from the
directory [public.tex.amsfonts.pxl300], which don't seem to be compressed;
we had trouble earlier because we couldn't decompress the same fonts
from the PAVEL section of the archive.
The line we added to dvihp.fnt needed the font number; we took
that from the ams list as 139. Is that the right number to use?
The full line was:
MSYM10 10 139 300 329 360 432 518 622 746;
those last seven numbers being the various magnifications available.
Any advice would be welcome!
Frank Drake and John Derrick, Leeds University.
---------------------------------
Date: 25-MAR-1988 09:49:14 GMT
From: CENSWM@UK.AC.HW.VAXA
To: abbott@UK.AC.ASTON
Subject: More probs
Peter
I am having problems (again) in two areas! the first is trying to unpack
the LN03 pixel files the problem is as follows:
When I unpacked these pk files, they didnt work, I got all
sorts of strange marks on the page.
I have also been trying to create an new base file using inimf but
I am getting problems here also. What I have done is this:
I edited my WAITS.MF file with the new values of blackness.
Ran INIMF
loaded PLAIN and WAITS
then dumped this out.
However when I ran MF subsequently I got the error "I am stymied bad base file"
I suppose the real solution is to buy the Metafont book! but have you any ideas
as to where ive gone wrong.
Any help would be appreciated
Stuart.
---------------------------------
Received: from acorn by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK with UUCP id aa08152;
23 Mar 88 17:07 GMT
Received: by acorn.UUCP (5.51/4.7)
id AA26647; Wed, 23 Mar 88 17:03:43 GMT
Message-Id: <8803231703.AA26647@acorn.UUCP>
To: abbottp@uk.ac.aston
Cc: gtoal@uucp.acorn
Subject: Advance warning; files to follow...
Date: Wed,23 Mar 1988.17:34:54
From: GToal@uucp.acorn
Dear Peter,
after a bit of poking around I have found the following:
uuencode.c - portable, tested, public domain
uudecode.c - portable, tested, public domain
tar.c - not portable, not tested, minix
shar.c - portable, not tested, minix
compress.c - portable, tested, public domain
I shall send each of these by mail immediately after posting this.
I am not sure of the public domain status of code from the minix
project: I believe it to be public domain but I have not seen
this in writing anywhere yet.
I have included shar.c in case it is of benefit to any unix sites
who use your service, but shar is much less useful than the others
as it needs the unix shell to decode it.
Graham.
+++Editor - I have the files but as yet am not sure how to make them
available for use, I will investigate asap +++
---------------------------------
!!
!! Replies/submissions to info-tex@uk.ac.aston please
!! distribution changes to info-tex-request@uk.ac.aston please
!!
!! end of issue