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