X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1846" "Wed" "11" "November" "1998" "09:41:01" "GMT" "Phillip Helbig" "helbig@MAN.AC.UK" nil "31" "Re: What is \"base\" LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "11" nil "What is \"base\" LaTeX" nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA00501; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:56:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.601EA6A6@listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:56:19 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 407404 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:56:13 +0100 Received: from multivac (multivac.jb.man.ac.uk [130.88.24.128]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA15066 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:45:40 +0100 (MET) X-VMS-To: SMTP%"LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de" X-VMS-Cc: HELBIG Message-ID: <98111109410187@man.ac.uk> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:41:01 GMT From: Phillip Helbig Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: What is "base" LaTeX Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 2843 > None of the above is intended to argue in favour of any particular > set-up for handling LaTeX but just to indicate that it needs its own > solution, not that which works for a different system. > > > chris I agree. With regard to the comparison between LaTeX and OS's, Linux etc. I think it's fair to point out that there are OS's which are produced in cathedrals (or by the Pope himself) and those cobbled together at bazaars and in each category there are better and worse examples. There is also a selection effect in that a lot of people talk about linux since it was something of a surprise that it worked out so well---we probably don't hear much about failed bazaar projects. Never having used any microsoft stuff(!) I'm not that competent to comment, but probably one reason one hears so many complaints about it is because one expects more from a cathedral (well, someone said His Billness is the Antichrist, but you get the idea[1]). In other words, people don't hear much about either failed bazaars or good cathedrals, since that's what's expected, but hear about successful bazaars and failed cathedrals. There are a lot of very good cathedral products out there which are very good and chugging away and are very successful but one never hears anything about them. Imagine if one judged countries of the world by how often they appear on the news! -- Phillip Helbig Email ......... p.helbig@jb.man.ac.uk Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories Tel. .... +44 1477 571 321 (ext. 297) Jodrell Bank Fax ................ +44 1477 571 618 Macclesfield Telex ................ 36149 JODREL G UK-Cheshire SK11 9DL Web ... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pjh/ My opinions are not necessarily those of NRAL or the University of Manchester.