Newsgroups: comp.dsp
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DSP textbook
Message-ID: <1989Sep25.185626.21313@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References:  <1989Sep20.195449.3833x@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> <7070001@hpnmdla.HP.COM> <459@eedsp.gatech.edu> <668@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM> <3085@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> <1989Sep24.032613.11841@utzoo.uucp> <4593@amiga.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 18:56:26 GMT

In article <4593@amiga.UUCP> jimm@batgirl.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes:
>I think it's probably far and away easier to find TeX to run on non-unix
>machines, including PC, Mac, Amiga, ST, and so on.  Also, I'd expect
>it to be available on most unix machines...
>I suggest we determine which is more common in the *subscribers* 
>environments...

Actually, I suggest we drop this entire line of debate, because it misses
the most important point.  Most people do not want to run the news articles
through a text formatter to read them.  Even those who might consider this
have a good chance of not having the relevant formatter.  Few people
are going to want to run out and get a big, slow formatter program just
so they can read postings (and they're *all* big and slow).  There is a big
difference between being able to get the software and actually having it
on hand; most non-Unix machines in practice have *neither* eqn nor TeX.
For that matter, there are a good many Unix machines -- especially System
V boxes -- that have neither.

The issue should be readability to the unaided human eye, not whose text
formatter is found on more machines.
-- 
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu