- From: Andrea Gamba <address@hidden>
- To: address@hidden
- Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] TeXmacs name
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:40:08 +0100
I have to disagree. The name is good, usability is bad. If the
interface was smooth and standard, the behavior predictable, features
were easy accessible, the program would spread like fire, at least in
the scientific world. As is, it is used only by people who really love
it (like me).
For instance, there are such great features in Texmacs that are unique
(there is nothing like that, either proprietary or free) such as open
interfaces to many algebraic manipulation programs. Well, most of these
interfaces has been broken in a popular distribution like Ubuntu for
years. At each upgrade, fixing the broken interfaces is a pain, at the
point that I gave up, and only do it when I'm urged to.
Now it can be said that interfaces are the responsibility of developers
of the programs that get interfaced. I am not sure about that. A lean
and stable interface to Axiom for instance would boost the interest for
Texmacs among a lot of people.
Attention to popular distributions is also important. I use Ubuntu
because it's smooth and easy to work with. Ubuntu is probably the most
adopted Linux distribution. But, there is not even an official Ubuntu
mantainer for Texmacs, we rely on packages for Debian. The Ubuntu
package for Axiom is 4 years old. The Texmacs interface for Axiom does
not work without a lot of fixes. This situation is obviously hampering
Texmacs diffusion among Ubuntu users much more than the problem of the name.
So I have a humble suggestion. Try to refocus part of the efforts on the
usability side. Select a couple of open source CAS and make the
interface to them really work on the most popular distributions (Maxima
has the best interface available, but Maxima itself is limited with
respect e.g. to Axiom). And in general, make the interface standard and
predictable to average users (possibly this is being done with the qt
port? I just had no chance to test it).
Lastly, I have a technical suggestion. The interface for drawing figures
is quite interesting but incomplete. A nice possibility would be to
enhance the ability to embed svg figures, and to have some key binding
that opens a standard svg manipulation program like Inkscape to edit them.
At the moment, I open an Inkscape document, than import the figure in
Texmacs. It's not as convenient as it would be to have the choice to
open Inkscape directly with some right click on the figure inside the
Texmacs document.
Andrea
Gubinelli Massimiliano wrote:
Hi all,
we've discussed the issue with the name at few times in the past,
both in person and on the web (cfr. the link given by Alvaro in this
thread). I agree that TeXmacs does not sound bad at all, especially
for a regular TeXmacs user... But nonetheless there is some
impression (maybe misled) that the prefix TeX- in the name convey the
utterly wrong idea that TeXmacs is an interface to TeX like many
others avaliables (Lyx, Kile, TeXshop, TeXworks, TeXnicCenter, etc...)
For that point of view, TeXmacs is both weird (due to its
old-fashioned interface -- sorry Joris) and bad, since when the lambda
user discover that there is not full LaTeX support is just horrified.
So in my opinion the name attracts only the wrong class of users
(those who are looking for a TeX frontend) and the reality of the
software repel them since it is not what they where looking for. My
personal experience is that it took me many occasional visits to the
TeXmacs web page to finally understand the real quality of the program
and the big difference between this kind of programs and the others
I've mentioned. I think between the first time I get to knew TeXmacs
and the moment I get involved in developing passed 3/5 years.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.