[OS X TeX] 64-bit binaries in TeXLive 2010

Alain Schremmer schremmer.alain at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 15:36:49 CET 2009

On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:42 AM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:54 PM, David Watson wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Alain Schremmer wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> There are the cutting edge people whom any update of TeXLive  
>>> ravishes and who are thriving on debugging TeXLive 2009. And  
>>> these are the people whom the "latest", whether hard or soft,  
>>> indeed "forces" them to upgrade.
>>> But then there are those of us who "are typically very slow to  
>>> update their computers and computing techniques" whom, regardless  
>>> of what is in the latest TeXLive, would seem more likely than not  
>>> just to ignore the latest TeXLive and keep on going with what  
>>> they have. These, then certainly do not feel "forced" by the  
>>> "latest" to upgrade anything.
>>> I must be missing something.
> <- snip ->
>> The issue here is that there is a point at which support for TeX  
>> on PPC shouldn't be expected to outlast support for the current OS  
>> and development tools.
> I think this is an important point. As the compilers, etc. advance,  
> developers are forced to keep up. Apple has a policy of supporting  
> the current OS as well as the previous one, but not before (I mean,  
> X.n and X.n-1). So the developer would be committed to maintaining  
> versions frozen at various points as well as those that run on the  
> latest system. As the latest development tools allow the developers  
> to do things that the old tools didn't, there would be start to be  
> divergences in features, capabilities, etc.

This is where I was afraid I might be missing something and I am  
still not clear:

1) Being behind does not mean being lost. I am still using GWTeX. And  
if, for some reason, I couldn't anymore, I could always upgrade to  
TeXLive2008 which, I assume is still going to be available.

2) The issue, I think, is whether or not the new features should be  
made available on older systems and given 1), I really do not see why  
as it is then the user's choice: to stay with what s/he has or to pay  
the price for availing her/himself with the new improved.

3) There are features and then there are features. I wouldn't upgrade  
for speed as things as they are are already too fast for my slow  
brain. But suppose TeXShop under Snow+1 were to feature a split  
output window synchronized with the split source window or a source  
collapsible to sections or both. Now, there I would immediately  
upgrade to Snow+1.

> This just pushes the question back to the developer tools and  
> compilers, etc. Why should *they* move ahead in a manner that makes  
> the software developed with them

obsolete? If so, because it makes for sales, and, in the case of free  
software, because, like the Everest, it is there.

> LaTeX itself, of course, is remarkably stable, one of its central  
> virtues, designed precisely to avoid these problems with new OS's  
> and hardware.
> I think that Windows OS's are supported for a long, long time?

docx? (or was that a joke?)


More information about the macostex-archives mailing list