<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
As I think I mentioned before, this TechInstallChallenged, starting
from Slater's page, decided, mostly from hubris, "<i>i<span class="TEX">T<span
class="E">E</span>X</span>Mac, on the other hand, stresses features,
at the expense of a less streamlined interface. It has enhanced
features much more typical of a powerful programming editor</i>", to
install iTeXMac via Fink. Fink was not a good experience even
"commanded". Humbled, I "i-installed" TeXshop and lived happy ever
since.<br>
<br>
All of this to say that, now, I see why.<br>
<br>
What I don't see is how i-install installs packages other than those
already provided. But that is very, very low, if at all, on my priority
list and just a matter of curiosity.<br>
<br>
Regards and Thanks.<br>
--schremmer<br>
<br>
Gerben Wierda wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid7A5A3D09-B603-11D8-9044-003065B3343E@rna.nl">On Jun 4, 2004,
at 03:59, Anthony Morton wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Personally I like to think of i-Installer as
'Fink without the baggage', but I don't know that Gerben would want to
go that far. :-) <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No. Fink is a good idea mainly, I just happen to have started from a
different perspective, namely that it must be usable without people
having a developer system installed, good for more than compiling from
sources (fink can do that these days I think). I also have a different
opinion about a few philosophical points. Fink wants to make sure
everything works. It does that by separating an area on your system to
build its own subsystem and that things work together is possible by
keeping relations within that subsystem. That approach has one
potential security drawback, namely that you have to give the
possibility to override Apple stuff. But it is basically a good idea.
My project never was providing the installer and the packages, I
provide only a limited set in i-Installer. I wanted the installer to be
a citizien that can live in many worlds. You could use the i-package to
configure a TeX installation that you built from the sources and I
wouldn't care less. I lose the possibility of control that fink has, I
gain the possibilty of integrating i-Installer with other modes of
software install and I do not take it upon me to maintain my own
subsystem. Having subsystems in my mind is not the most elegant
situation, but it is the only situation if you want to provide users
with the stability only a controlled subsystem can give you. It is give
and take, both projects are in a different niche. <br>
<br>
G <br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------- <br>
Post: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:MacOSX-TeX@email.esm.psu.edu"><mailto:MacOSX-TeX@email.esm.psu.edu></a> <br>
Please see <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/"><http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/></a> for list <br>
guidelines, information, and LaTeX/TeX resources. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>