From: ah017@yfn.ysu.edu (John B. Lee) Subject: Re: A Better WordProcessor Idea Date: 23 May 1993 00:58:09 GMT
In a previous article, OPER_ALEX@JMUVAX (ALEX W WADDELL) says:
>In <1993May20.203607.25834@leland.Stanford.EDU> yseeley@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>> In article <1tgnl1INNcre@uwm.edu> rick@ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) writes:
>> >A word or two on the "Let's write a word-processor!" discussion,
>> > currently raging on 'comp.os.linux'...
>> >
>> >Hey, folks! There's nothing 'magical' about DOS's wordprocessors. Some
>> >(like WordPerfect-5.0) have already been ported to UNIX platforms and are
>> >being sold commercially. Let's just do what is *always* done... CLONE IT!
>> >
>> >The very *best* GNU software are the ones which are plug-n-play replacements
>> >for their commercial counterparts... with improvements!
>> >
>> >Let's not re-invent the wheel. Let's just write our own WordPerfect clone!
>> >
>> >It doesn't have to do *everything* at first, but if it uses WordPerfect's
>> >key-function bindings and can read/write WordPerfect-compatible files...
>> >it'll knock the socks off clumsy ol' "doc". With its menu-bar, WP5.1 was
>> >such a snap for me to use that I've never yet read the manual, and its
>> >pre-viewer was all I needed. I wasn't distracted by WYSIWYGitis, but I
>> >could see what it was going to look like when I wanted to.
>> >
>> >Come on, folks. Face it. WordPerfect[tm] is a de facto standard.
>> >How many times has Lotus 1-2-3 been cloned? Why not WordPerfect???
>> >
>> >*ARE* there any WordPerfect clones out there? It might make things a bit
>> >easier if we had some rough source-code to start from...
>> >
>> >RICK MILLER <rick@ee.uwm.edu> <ricxjo@discus.mil.wi.us>
>> >16203 WOODS Send me a postcard and you'll get one back!
>> >53150-8615 USA Enposxtigu bildkarton kaj vi ricevos alion!
>>
>> WP for DOS is the defacto standard only if you restrict yourself to
>> a DOS environment. I tried Word for Windows and WP5.1 was promptly
>> removed from my HD. I hear that WP for Windows and Lotus Ami Pro, among
>> others, are all very good. This is what my ideal word processor for
>> Linux would look like.
>>
>> Something like what you describe (WP5.1) would also be very
>> useful and have it's place. Something like this would probably be much
>> more suited to using vgalib and would not require a full X install, and
>> it could be used on almost any terminal that supported rudimentary
>> cursor positioning (without preview function of course).
>>
>> - Yonik Seeley
>> yseeley@cs.stanford.edu
>
>I agree that Word for Windows, and other WYSIWYG word smithers are top notch.
>But I also think that the main reason for using UNIX (for me, at least) is
>its terrific networking aspects.
>
>I'd like to see something like a WP 5.1 for VMS clone. It does support
>previews, but not like DOS (char based)... and we could add VGA support
>for the consoles. With such a system, I could do my work from anywhere in
>the world.
>
>Thanks,
>Alex W. Waddell
>James Madison University
>Harrisonburg, VA
>
I agree, the reason I'm using Unix now is because of the great networking
and security aspects, not to mention its superiority over DOS. I think a
solution to this problem of not having a wordprocesor can be solved by
using an EMACS/LaTeX combination to do work.
-- John Lee -- Simplistic Software "Software so simple you'll never see it"