mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Gubinelli Massimiliano <address@hidden>]

Andrea,
 I fully agree with you. Usability is really bad (moreso outside the  
unix world) and we should work hard on this and on integration with  
CAS to reach a point where TeXmacs could be preferrable to e.g.  
Scientific Workplace (a Windows commercial platform with integrated  
CAS - mupad).
The problem is that this require quite a lot of unpleasant fine-tuning  
work and people to do it. Im not claiming that another name will  
improve usability but I'm arguing that changing name could help the  
process of community making by attracting more external people on the  
project and giving them a chanche to get involved in this development.  
I'm not expecting a magical effect but I think that the upcoming large  
restructuring of the software (by the finalization of the Qt port)  
give us a "singularity" where a change of name could be justified.

Moreover change a name cost less than writing lines of software.... So  
it would be interesting to assess which benefits (or losses) we could  
induce by it.

max


On 12 déc. 09, at 08:40, Andrea Gamba wrote:

> 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.