I'm doing dnf upgrade on F23. Like many other times, it's updating some humongous number of items involving texlive; It must be a huge program.
Afaik, I have never used texlive at all. Unless some other app calls it, I seem to be wasting a lot of space -- and maybe exposing my machine to a lot of hazards that I'm not competent even to study.
Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it??
Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it?
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it?
As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all.
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any) might call it.
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 +0000 Beartooth beartooth@comcast.net wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it?
As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all.
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any) might call it.
Just
sudo dnf erase texlive-*
and see what it offers to take out with it. If you can live without those, then you are in business.
R, for isntance, uses texlive. Also many other packages (eg ImageMagick-perl, etc) do.
HTH, Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ Can't remember your password? Do you need a strong and secure password? Use Password manager! It stores your passwords & protects your account. Check it out at http://mysecurelogon.com/manager
On 01/24/2016 03:01 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 +0000 Beartooth beartooth@comcast.net wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it?
As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all.
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any) might call it.
Just
sudo dnf erase texlive-*
and see what it offers to take out with it. If you can live without those, then you are in business.
R, for isntance, uses texlive. Also many other packages (eg ImageMagick-perl, etc) do.
HTH, Ranjan
Note: texlive packages are depended upon by:
atril atril-caja atril-devel atril-libs compat-guile18 frescobaldi lilypond lyx lyx-common mathjax mathjax-ams-fonts mathjax-caligraphic-fonts mathjax-fraktur-fonts mathjax-main-fonts mathjax-math-fonts mathjax-sansserif-fonts mathjax-script-fonts mathjax-size1-fonts mathjax-size2-fonts mathjax-size3-fonts mathjax-size4-fonts mathjax-typewriter-fonts mathjax-winchrome-fonts mathjax-winie6-fonts tetex-dvipost
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 21:45 +0000, Beartooth wrote:
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any) might call it.
It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. Calling it a "word processor" is like calling Mozart a songwriter :-)
However there's certainly no reason to have it on your system if you don't use it. Feel free to erase the whole shebang. Dnf (or yum) will warn you before wiping anything else that depends on it.
poc
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.
I don't know how many research papers you have read, but the amount of crappy MS Word today is real and (educated guess warning) growing.
In your defense, most **good** STEM papers today are written using proper document markup languages and compiled into high quality files.
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.
You may be right, though I'm not sure by how much. An order of magnitude would mean only around 10% qualify and I doubt that's the case. Or maybe you were being as informal as I was ...
I don't know how many research papers you have read, but the amount of crappy MS Word today is real and (educated guess warning) growing.
A quick look at recent preprints in arxiv.org shows e.g. in maths virtually every paper appears to be in TeX/LaTeX, similarly in physics. Of course that's a judgment call based on appearance (such as the fonts used and whether formulae are properly typeset) since most papers don't say what system they were written in. Certainly the active research mathematicians I know write exclusively in LaTeX, but I don't read as many papers now as I used to.
In your defense, most **good** STEM papers today are written using proper document markup languages and compiled into high quality files.
We can agree on that.
poc
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:23:47 -0200 Bernardo Sulzbach mafagafogigante@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.
I don't know how many research papers you have read, but the amount of crappy MS Word today is real and (educated guess warning) growing.
FWIW, I think that if you read Patrick's complete statement, he is not terribly inaccurate: he cites Math, Physics, CS -- to that I would add statistics and computational methods/OR. If you look at some of the professional societies (eg IEEE, ACM, ASA, AMA, etc) that submit style files, you will note that TeX overwhelms everything else.
Ranjan
____________________________________________________________ Can't remember your password? Do you need a strong and secure password? Use Password manager! It stores your passwords & protects your account. Check it out at http://mysecurelogon.com/password-manager
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Ranjan Maitra maitra.mbox.ignored@inbox.com wrote:
FWIW, I think that if you read Patrick's complete statement, he is not terribly inaccurate: he cites Math, Physics, CS -- to that I would add statistics and computational methods/OR. If you look at some of the professional societies (eg IEEE, ACM, ASA, AMA, etc) that submit style files, you will note that TeX overwhelms everything else.
I said, and quote:
In your defense, most **good** STEM papers today are written using proper document markup languages and compiled into high quality files.
The associations abovementioned have very high quality standards, much above average.
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.
You may be right, though I'm not sure by how much. An order of magnitude would mean only around 10% qualify and I doubt that's the case. Or maybe you were being as informal as I was ...
I don't know how many research papers you have read, but the amount of crappy MS Word today is real and (educated guess warning) growing.
A quick look at recent preprints in arxiv.org shows e.g. in maths virtually every paper appears to be in TeX/LaTeX, similarly in physics. Of course that's a judgment call based on appearance (such as the fonts used and whether formulae are properly typeset) since most papers don't say what system they were written in. Certainly the active research mathematicians I know write exclusively in LaTeX, but I've been out of the game for some years now.
In your defense, most **good** STEM papers today are written using proper document markup languages and compiled into high quality files.
We can agree on that.
poc
Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. Calling it a "word processor" is like calling Mozart a songwriter :-)
Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because its ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous. But I've never tried formulae in it, etc., nor used any word processor as a precision page layout engine, either.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:05 +1030 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. Calling it a "word processor" is like calling Mozart a songwriter :-)
Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because its ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
It is not engrained in academia in general, but predominant in things that need complicated outlets and equations.
I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous. But I've never tried formulae in it, etc., nor used any word processor as a precision page layout engine, either.
Try out both and see the difference!
Ranjan
-- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
Boilerplate: All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages posted to the mailing list.
Windows (TM) [Typhoid Mary]. They refuse to believe that there's anything wrong with it, but everyone else knows Windows is a disease that spreads.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote:
Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because its ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous. But I've never tried formulae in it, etc., nor used any word processor as a precision page layout engine, either.
Yes, it really outclasses the alternatives. When it comes to typesetting complex equations, it really has no competition. No doubt Word can be tortured into producing equation output (I know it has some maths setting capability) but the huge advantage of TeX/LaTeX is that it's *not* a word processor, it's a document description language and typesetter. There are plenty of examples on the Web so I won't repeat them here, but as someone who worked on an early typesetting system for Cambridge University Press (way back in the 70's) I know how horrendous maths copy can be and how well TeX handles it.
poc
Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working copy of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a What You See Is What You Get like Word.
In defense of Word and Writer (LibreOffice), most publishers of books that consist mostly of text do use text processors as they are decent nowadays.
Just a last mention, you can see that everyone on this mailing list that has used TeX advocates for it. This has to mean something.
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 11:25 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working copy of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a What You See Is What You Get like Word.
To quote Brian Kernighan on WYSIWYG systems, they're actually "What You See Is All You Get" :-)
In defense of Word and Writer (LibreOffice), most publishers of books that consist mostly of text do use text processors as they are decent nowadays.
For some values of "decent". Unfortunately they leave too many design decisions to the author rather than the publisher, and only work properly if the author resists the temptation to fiddle with style sheets.
Just a last mention, you can see that everyone on this mailing list that has used TeX advocates for it. This has to mean something.
All very true.
poc
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote:
Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because its ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous. But I've never tried formulae in it, etc., nor used any word processor as a precision page layout engine, either.
Yes, it really outclasses the alternatives. When it comes to typesetting complex equations, it really has no competition. No doubt Word can be tortured into producing equation output (I know it has some maths setting capability) but the huge advantage of TeX/LaTeX is that it's *not* a word processor, it's a document description language and typesetter. There are plenty of examples on the Web so I won't repeat them here, but as someone who worked on an early typesetting system for Cambridge University Press (way back in the 70's) I know how horrendous maths copy can be and how well TeX handles it.
I formatted my PhD thesis "way back in the 70's" using a CDC mainframe system with a small character set (no lowercase alphabet). Markup was needed for capitalization as well as (typewriter-quality) maths. TeX was developed on a system that supported 7-bit ASCII.
Since 2007, Word has used a high-quality math layout engine internally. In short, LaTeX provides structural markup for the low-level TeX engine, while current versions of Word provide a GUI for an engine whose capabilities draw heavily on the ideas behind TeX) but extended to support UniCode.
See http://blogs.msdn.com/b/murrays/archive/2006/09/13/752206.aspx for details of how Word has adopted (and extended in areas such as UniCode math support) the math typesetting infrastructure that grew up around TeX. Current versions of Word are capable of producing high-quality maths, but there are other reasons for the continued importance of TeX-based systems.
TeX/LaTeX are widely used to format software documentation where batch processing across unix/linux and Windows systems is required. There are some massive documents (think about technical manuals for commercial aircraft) that may need to be be provided in multiple translations and formats where a TeX-based format makes it possible to automate much of the formatting.
For technical writing in other than Western-European languages (e.g., using UniCOde), open-source TeX-based systems have lagged a few years behind Word. Developing high-quality fonts thru international standards processes has been slow. Microsoft can just go ahead and do things without consulting external bodies. Since there is still an important segment of the TeX community using ASCII source format and a huge number of existing documents that requite updating and revisions, TeX has to preserve support for legacy documents. As a result, we now have two widely used engines, pdfTeX and luaTeX, and also multiple backends (dvips, dvipdfmx), bibliographic systems, and systems for generating graphics in TeX-based documents.
The fact that the TeX-based systems are open-source means that users with needs that are not handled by Word can often find solutions using a modern TeX system.
Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction.
However, maybe it was just a bad installation or something that got fixed in the latest releases.
Am 25.01.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach:
Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction.
However, maybe it was just a bad installation or something that got fixed in the latest releases.
Having edited math textbooks for students 5-12 in my professional live and still doing so occasionally after retirement, I found out that I had to bite the bullet and pay some Euros for MathType (the formula editor Word was a light version of this plugin until 2003, I think) when being forced by my customers to use Word. Only this way I achieved to smoothly integrate formulas into the document fonts. As far as I know, the MathType engine is tex based.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage kpschrage@gmx.de wrote:
when being forced by my customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage kpschrage@gmx.de wrote:
when being forced by my customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
It's very common in the Pathology community. I wrote two book chapters and published about 20 articles in the past 5 years, and they all required Word documents. I run Windows XP as a virtual machine specifically so I can take my LibreOffice documents and run them through Word to make sure everything works before submitting them. This obviously doesn't involve a lot of equations, but it does involve diagrams and illustrations, which can be an issue.
billo
Am 25.01.2016 um 16:50 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage kpschrage@gmx.de wrote:
when being forced by my customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
The publishing house I had been working for usually does their typesetting with InDesign, and when it comes to math, they use an InDesign plugin called mt.editor. They also produce materials for teachers like worksheets etc. which are supposed to be editable, that's when Word comes into the play - but I think now we are drifting a bit OT ...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:32:04 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 01/24/2016 12:37 PM, Beartooth wrote:
Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it??
Try removing it with --assumeno to see what else would go away with it.
Many thanks to all who replied! Even the OT comments interested me. (I have a BA in pure math.) By way of comparison, my dissertation (1970) was typed on an electric typewriter, and cut & pasted with scissors and rubber cement; I never touched a computer till the early Eighties.
For the record, I never called texlive a word-processor; what I did say was that it contained one. (That much was obvious just from skimming the list of routines that got updated by dnf.)
When dnf listed all the things it would delete, I typed the ones I thought I might want into a second root prompt after "dnf install", and ran it after the deletion finished. That'd've put back a baker's dozen items from texlive, plus a couple for qgis, plus a couple of python plotters -- stuff I might like, but would probably seldom if ever get around to using. <shrug>
Again, many thanks to all!
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 17:15 +0000, Beartooth wrote:
Many thanks to all who replied! Even the OT comments interested me. (I have a BA in pure math.) By way of comparison, my dissertation (1970) was typed on an electric typewriter, and cut & pasted with scissors and rubber cement; I never touched a computer till the early Eighties.
My PhD thesis (1978) was written on a PDP-11/45 with 6th Edition Unix, using "em", formatted in Nroff and printed on a Diablo :-) Luckily for me, there were no formulae in it.
For the record, I never called texlive a word-processor; what I did say was that it contained one. (That much was obvious just from skimming the list of routines that got updated by dnf.)
At the risk of being pedantic, it doesn't contain a word processor. It contains a document typesetting system. It has no user interface other than your favourite text editor (although various GUI-like things have been developed around it for those interested). Anyway, enough about that.
poc
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
At the risk of being pedantic, it doesn't contain a word processor. It contains a document typesetting system. It has no user interface other than your favourite text editor (although various GUI-like things have been developed around it for those interested). Anyway, enough about that.
Last message I drop in this thread, hopefully. I think it really boils down to what is your conception of "text processor". Personally, I agree with you, TeX is not a cousin of LibreOffice Writer.
Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
I think it really boils down to what is your conception of "text processor".
That keeps getting redefined, over the years.
Early ones were little more than an electric typewriter on screen, sometimes called an article editor. Some people consider it a word processor if you have basic editing features, others just call that a text editor, and expect some sort of cross-referencing features as a bare minimum (indexes, bibliographies, etc.).
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find everyone agreeing on what one basically is, other than pointing at some highly featured one saying, that's a word processor.
-
Beartooth -
Bernardo Sulzbach -
George N. White III -
JD -
Joe Zeff -
Klaus-Peter Schrage -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Ranjan Maitra -
Tim -
William Oliver