Is there any wordprocessor in unix

[Greg A. Woods]

In article <1140 at vsi.COM> friedl at vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
> In article <19907 at cup.portal.com>, dbell at cup.portal.com (David J Bell) writes:
> > 
> > OK, *roff will *format* most anything I want. But what about a friendly,
> > near-modeless, full-screen editor? Like WordPerfect, frinstance?
> 
> [ praise-and-hype-mode ON ]

[ Hmm... I guess I should say I ususally avoid word-processors at
all cost in the first place. ]

> We have been using WordPerfect for UNIX on the 3B2 and 386, and
> we have been absolutely delighted with it.  WP Corp did an
> excellent job maintaining the look-and-feel of the DOS version
> while still giving it a solid UNIX flavor.  They support lots of
> terminals%, and they even have real plastic keyboard overlays for
> them.  It appears that the files are compatible with those on a
> DOS machine (determined empirically), and it is reasonably fast.
> 
> This is a very professional implementation, and it does not bode
> well for the other UNIX word processors.

WordPerfect (4.2 on Unix) may be great for former WP users, and it
doesn't mess with "unix" _too_ much, BUT....

WP4.2 is an absolute PAIN when it comes to re-configuring for
un-supported terminals and printers.  The so-called "friendly",
menu-based configuration programmes have wasted more of my time
than I care to think about.  I will NEVER again attempt to
re-configure WP for any unsupported terminal or printer.  If it
don't work, I'll send it back.

WP Corp. did not attempt to use either termcap, or terminfo, and
as such, twice as much work is required when configuring
terminals, often with 90% of the extra time spent fighting with WP
Corp's strange view of terminals, and their time-consuming
configuration programme.  If only they had used native curses,
with potential extensions, or re-implemented curses, but use the
same database (either termcap, or preferably terminfo) (again with
potential extensions)....  You can't tell me curses can't do it,
'cause I've done even more with curses!

As for printer configuration, though their database seems quite
capable of describing a miriad of different printers and options,
they end up not using 90% of the functionality of better printers
(i.e. HP LJ) [ perhaps the formatter is broke? ].  They would have
been by far better off implementing printcap for those systems
without.  Again the configuration programme is more hindrance than
help.

As for being a good "word-processor", WP is severely limited in
scope compared to something like *roff, or TeX.  WP's menu's and
function keys are only slightly less confusing than any other
word-processor I've used, with MS-Word beating it by a mile.
Word, on the other hand, is quicker to frustrate an expert user.

As for being fast, I'll give it that, but at the same time I'm
going to call it a bigger memory and CPU hog than GNU-Emacs.  Mind
you, I compared it to an older version (17.52, I think) on an NCR
Tower 32/600.  I did no comparison between WP's formatter and troff.

Now, to really get up on my soap-box, I say that any reasonably
intelligent person can create better looking documents, in less
time, with less training, using troff or TeX, than is possible
with a "modern" word-processor.  I will assure you that people
can be taught ed and troff in less time than it takes to teach
the WP menu structure and basic WP editing and formatting.  The
reall problem comes when you try to train someone who has
pre-conceived notions about the task of electronic document
production.

[ Anyone got a WP->*roff xlator?  :-( ]
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{{utgpu,eci386,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP,gpu.utcs.UToronto.CA,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]		Toronto, Ontario CANADA