On Dec 15, 2007 1:25 AM, Michael Kerpan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do b
On 14-Dec-07 17:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as
> "obsolete" and "only useful for man pages", despite the
> fact that it can do everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly
> the favored non-WYSIWYG document processor) can do but
> while taking up 3
On 15/12/07 04:25:40, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written
> off by so many as "obsolete" ...
IMO it is all a matter of perceptions. People think that a 30 year old
application that, even today, does not have a GUI **must** be obsolete.
Add to this, *roff does not conf
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> ...that groff/troff seems to be written off by so many as "obsolete"
> and "only useful for man pages", despite the fact that it can do
> everything that TeX/LaTeX (seemingly the favored non-WYSIWYG document
> processor) can do but while taking up 3 me
