a word-processor for UNIX

[Tim McClarren]

In article <8484 at batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey at tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) writes:
>Two things.  First, I didn't write that, though I do think the example is
>a good one, and I might wish I had written it.  Which brings us, of course,
>to your criticisms of the statement.  Well, I don't why you are seeing 
>more books printed with M-word Word, because I'm not.  I own narry a one
>of them, whereas I own 7 books that used {La,AMS-,Plain }TeX, and I've 
>seen several more.  I think you are right, that perhaps you aren't reading
>high enough quality books [ 2/3 :-) ].
>
>Also, and this is pure speculation on my part, perhaps you are not reading
>the _back_ pages, as half of my TeXed books inform me that they were so
>typeset at the end, rather than the beginning.  Just a thought.

Incidentally, what sort of books are these that were typeset with TeX/*roff?
Surely you must realize that with the technical aptitude of people who
are writing books about computers and technology they would certainly
use tools such as these, because we all know that they are simply so much
more versatile.  However, perhaps you (I don't mean specifically you,
I mean those who are proponent's of the UNIX(c) environment in regards to
any sort of work involving the written word), aren't giving yourselves
enough credit.  After all, it's simple for you to understand TeX/*roff
as you are accustomed to things similar to it.  Likewise, people in other
walks of life (fiction writers, for instance), are more likely to not only
not understand computers in the least, some outwardly HATE them.  Thus,
anything that looks and acts at least somewhat like a typewriter (in which
I mean that you are essentially getting on the printed page whatever keys
you hit on the keyboard), they are much more comfortable with.  And, perhaps
my eye isn't trained enough, but I can't see much difference in the end
product.  

Tim McClarren
mcclaren at herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu