word processing
Mark Walker
Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under OpenServer
5, both character & graphical.
If not can anyone recommend the best way for our company, 20 employees using
bespoke software running on a mix of Wyse terminals and NCD nc's under
OpenServer 5, to allow each person to do word processing with the ability to
share letters.
Will consider changing the operation system to Unixware, NT or anything else
if needed.
Regards
Mark
Jean-Pierre Radley
|
| Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under OpenServer
| 5, both character & graphical.
WordPerfect runs on a few of my clients' machines.
OTOH, I just prefer vi. :-)
--
JP
Harry Fine
for years. I believe the current (final) version is 8.
Harry Fine
"Mark Walker" <ma...@mms-uk.com> wrote:
Harry Fine
Toronto, Canada
Stuart J. Browne
OpenServer
> | 5, both character & graphical.
>
> WordPerfect runs on a few of my clients' machines.
>
> OTOH, I just prefer vi. :-)
Yea, but you like doing things the way that looks the hardest don't you JP?
(jk)..
note.. i use vi too :)
Jean-Pierre Radley
| > | Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under
| > | OpenServer 5, both character & graphical.
| >
| > WordPerfect runs on a few of my clients' machines.
| >
| > OTOH, I just prefer vi. :-)
|
| Yea, but you like doing things the way that looks the hardest don't
| you JP?
Do you think I could possibly post as many messages as I do if I were not
using vi? Hard?? Vi makes my life *easy*. I couldn't tell you if I
invoke 'vi' or 'less' most frequently, but those two programs are far and
away the most frequently typed commands at this keyboard.
--
JP
- bill -
We use WordPerfect for unix (character mode) and WordPerfect for Windows
(GUI), all sharing files on the Unix (5.0.5) server via VisionFS. Works
like a charm without problems. I am sure the X version of WordPerfect
for Unix would work just fine too, but I prefer a character based word
processor.
(I don't use vi because I have to know WP, so I stick with what I know.
Add a few macros and WP will do text editing just fine (as opposed to
Word Processing)
--
-bill-
Technical Service Systems - bi...@TechServSys.com
Ben Rosenthal
Don't you wish there was a spell checker for vi? If I used vi to write things
for public consumption I would present a *bad* image. 8-)
Ben Rosenthal
Bill Campbell
>Don't you wish there was a spell checker for vi? If I used vi to write things
>for public consumption I would present a *bad* image. 8-)
Try ispell. Type ``:!ispell %'' in vi to spell check the current document
(you will probably have to do ``:e %'' after if it makes any changes.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
http://www.celestial.com/
The question is, why are politicians so eager to be president? What is
it about the job that makes it worth revealing, on national television,
that you have the ethical standards of a slime-coated piece of
industrial waste?
-- Dave Barry, "On Presidential Politics"
Bill Vermillion
>> Mark Walker propounded (on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:05:45PM -0000):
>> | Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under
>> | OpenServer 5, both character & graphical.
>> WordPerfect runs on a few of my clients' machines.
>> OTOH, I just prefer vi. :-)
>Don't you wish there was a spell checker for vi? If I used vi to
>write things for public consumption I would present a *bad* image.
>8-)
Use ispell with vi. Remember that Unix is a set of tools you hook
together. A text editor doesn't need to have a spell checker built
in as does a word-processor.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Harold Knopke
I have mapped one of my function keys as follows:
G:r !spell %^M
which jumps me to the end of the document and will append a list of
all the words that the spell program doesn't like. Use / to jump to
the misspelled word and correct it. Use / again and it will jump back
to the list of misspelled words. Delete that one and go on to the
next. It's fast, simple and I am finished before I would find my
mouse and fiddle around with highlighting, clicking, etc. check man
spell for details.
Harold Knopke
Ben Rosenthal
> ...
> >Don't you wish there was a spell checker for vi? If I used vi to write things
> >for public consumption I would present a *bad* image. 8-)
>
> Try ispell. Type ``:!ispell %'' in vi to spell check the current document
> (you will probably have to do ``:e %'' after if it makes any changes.
>
> Bill
Words can not describe my elation! I just tried this and it worked. Thank you for
bringing this to me. It just goes to show, you CAN do anything with UNIX.
Ben Rosenthal
R. D. Davis
Mark Walker <ma...@mms-uk.com> wrote:
>Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under OpenServer
>5, both character & graphical.
Yes; install emacs, xemacs and LaTeX (get the teTeX package which
includes things like pdftex), and you'll have a text processing
package that will run circles around software like Wordperfect or
Microsoft Word; this is also faster to use once you learn how to use
it, and it has the benefit of having no annoying bugs.
>OpenServer 5, to allow each person to do word processing with the ability to
>share letters.
There's a LaTeX macro package available for a letter format; if you don't
like that, it's not difficult to hack your own.
>Will consider changing the operation system to Unixware, NT or anything else
>if needed.
Hmmm... Haven't you heard that NT is not an operating system? Didn't
you know that NT is someone's idea of a sick joke, which combines a
cripped version of VAX/VMS innards with Microsloth Windoze?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis Ancient guru who see future once say:
All Rights Reserved "wise man who meditate upon immortal wisdom
r...@perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 of Bart Simpson's words: "Don't have a cow,
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd man" will enjoy interesting life."
Bill Vermillion
R. D. Davis <r...@smarty.smart.net> wrote:
>In article <3a9d5...@katana.legend.co.uk>,
>Mark Walker <ma...@mms-uk.com> wrote:
>>Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under OpenServer
>>5, both character & graphical.
>Yes; install emacs, xemacs and LaTeX (get the teTeX package which
>includes things like pdftex), and you'll have a text processing
>package that will run circles around software like Wordperfect or
>Microsoft Word; this is also faster to use once you learn how to use
>it, and it has the benefit of having no annoying bugs.
I'd classify it far more than a text processor or word processor.
All you had to do is print one or two docs with Latex and you'll
wonder why people live with the ugly outputs of Word. You don't
notice it until you see them side by side.
>>OpenServer 5, to allow each person to do word processing with the
>>ability to share letters.
>There's a LaTeX macro package available for a letter format; if you
>don't like that, it's not difficult to hack your own.
>>Will consider changing the operation system to Unixware, NT or
>>anything else if needed.
>Hmmm... Haven't you heard that NT is not an operating system? Didn't
>you know that NT is someone's idea of a sick joke, which combines a
>cripped version of VAX/VMS innards with Microsloth Windoze?
There are still too many people who think you have to have
a homogeneous network. That went away a long time ago. You
shouldn't have to change OSes, but you could add another one to
the mix.
The only times I've had problems in mixed OS environments is that
the Apple Mac Word outputs don't always format the same in a
Winxx environment. Doc that you'd expect to be formatted in an
8.5x11 format look more like 9x9.5, and require modification. At
least the ones I got from the one shop like that.
Jean-Pierre Radley
| Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
|
| > Mark Walker propounded (on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:05:45PM -0000):
| > |
| > | Do anyone know of a word processing package that will run under OpenServer
| > | 5, both character & graphical.
| >
| > WordPerfect runs on a few of my clients' machines.
| >
| > OTOH, I just prefer vi. :-)
| >
|
| for public consumption I would present a *bad* image. 8-)
You can use spell, or you can use ispell.
--
JP
Stuart J. Browne
"Jean-Pierre Radley" <j...@jpr.com> wrote in message
news:2001022823...@jpradley.jpr.com...
Where did I say Vi was hard? I just said it looks the hardest :)
R. D. Davis
>I'd classify it far more than a text processor or word processor.
>All you had to do is print one or two docs with Latex and you'll
>wonder why people live with the ugly outputs of Word. You don't
>notice it until you see them side by side.
Yes, it's quite a difference, such as the way TeX (for those
unfamiliar with it, it's TeX, not LaTeX which actually does the core
of the work; LaTeX is just what makes it easier to use TeX, as LaTeX
provides macros to make using TeX a simple matter) even measures the
spacing of characters to about a thousandth of an inch, IIRC. LaTeX
makes writing papers, manuscripts, etc. a pleasurable experience,
unlike Micro$loth Word, which does strange things to what one's writing
and needlessly (ab)uses huge quanties of memory and disk space.
It may take a little longer to become proficient with using LaTeX, but
the time spend doing so is well worth it; don't believe those who will
tell you that it's obsolete or antiquated; it's actually much more
advanced than what most people consider "word processors." Try it
yourself and see. By the way, it's free.
Just my 2-cents worth. :-)
>There are still too many people who think you have to have
>a homogeneous network. That went away a long time ago. You
>shouldn't have to change OSes, but you could add another one to
>the mix.
I have no objection to adding various operating systems to my home
network, such as various flavors of UNIX, OpenVMS, RT-11, Accent,
TSX-plus, MacOS, etc... I'd even add CP/M and MP/M if I had an S-100
network card (do they exist?) and a TCP/IP stack for those operating
systems. However, I find those to be useful operating systems, unlike
that which oozes out from Micro$loths headquarters and pollutes lots
of computer hardware. ;-)
>The only times I've had problems in mixed OS environments is that
>the Apple Mac Word outputs don't always format the same in a
>Winxx environment. Doc that you'd expect to be formatted in an
>8.5x11 format look more like 9x9.5, and require modification. At
>least the ones I got from the one shop like that.
Hmmm... when I get Word documents, I just read them with
Emacs... search for a common word like "the" or "and" and it usually
becomes easy to find the actual text of a document.
Bill Vermillion
>>I'd classify it far more than a text processor or word processor.
>>All you had to do is print one or two docs with Latex and you'll
>>wonder why people live with the ugly outputs of Word. You don't
>>notice it until you see them side by side.
>Yes, it's quite a difference, such as the way TeX (for those
>unfamiliar with it, it's TeX, not LaTeX which actually does the core
>of the work; LaTeX is just what makes it easier to use TeX, as LaTeX
>provides macros to make using TeX a simple matter) even measures the
>spacing of characters to about a thousandth of an inch, IIRC. ...
>>There are still too many people who think you have to have
>>a homogeneous network. That went away a long time ago. You
>>shouldn't have to change OSes, but you could add another one to
>>the mix.
>>The only times I've had problems in mixed OS environments is that
>>the Apple Mac Word outputs don't always format the same in a
>>Winxx environment. Doc that you'd expect to be formatted in an
>>8.5x11 format look more like 9x9.5, and require modification. At
>>least the ones I got from the one shop like that.
>Hmmm... when I get Word documents, I just read them with
>Emacs... search for a common word like "the" or "and" and it usually
>becomes easy to find the actual text of a document.
These needed to be printed out for others - so it was a pain.
For just plain reading of MS Word documents I use a program
called "catdoc".
Supposedly even handles convertion to Tex but I've not used that.
On my BSD system it's in the ports tree.
Bill
James Richardson
James Richardson james_ri...@coastal.dnr.state.ga.us
Division Network Coordinator
GA Dept of Natural Resources (912) 264-7218
--
Posted from crd48011.coastal.dnr.State.Ga.US [167.195.48.11]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG