First login?
Lost password?
 
 
 
mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

Text archives Help


Re: [TeXmacs] TeXmacs name


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Gubinelli Massimiliano <address@hidden>
  • To: address@hidden
  • Subject: Re: [TeXmacs] TeXmacs name
  • Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:23:23 +0100
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=RjwHTFqYHavgYh25gNTZDu9+dF3LtGv4WsZ8CfdwgMw8uzm3npckoyxeM2udd4EjrJ qo6IW8ptapMjCkSyY7/99rtscdKkmnMmSQIaS9WgWjcBFski4qw6JUXjk/wmguNxFkE7 rh4QWVUKW5HehyOFADQoc4LdGLYQrmokkv37M=
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.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of page