[OS X TeX] New Macros, new Engines, new TeXShop versions, and all that

[Alain Schremmer]

On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Herbert Schulz wrote:

>
> On Feb 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, David Messerschmitt wrote:
>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I don't like anything to happen blindly! If the user really is  
>>> lazy I don't see what motivates them to do anything like make a  
>>> list of items they don't want, etc.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Exactly! Let me reiterate the principle: "Make upgrade  
>> _completely_ transparent for naive or lazy users who are happy  
>> with the packaged distribution, and place the burden of manual  
>> changes only on users who desire something different from the  
>> packaged distribution." I think there would be more naive users of  
>> TexShop if no manual intervention is required -- the corollary  
>> being that they are willing to let the TexShop maintainers choose  
>> macros etc for them and they have no interest in manually  
>> specifying what they dont want (like you say).
>>
>> Obviously there is an inconsistency between the requirements of a  
>> power user like Herb and a lazy user like me. The power user  
>> doesnt want anything to happen blindly, and the lazy user wants  
>> everything to happen blindly (and is willing to live with the  
>> consequences). Maybe the solution is to have two flavors of  
>> upgrade -- power and automatic -- chosen by checking one or the  
>> other box at the time of upgrade. Or maybe that is a one-time  
>> choice in preferences.
>>
>> -dave
>>
>
> Howdy,
>
> How is not doing anything to change things automatically not  
> totally transparent. The ``lazy'' user doesn't want anything to  
> change as far as I can tell and if they do want the new stuff they  
> can install it. Lets see... there was a macro that I used and  
> suddenly it disappeared when I updated TeXShop. And I've got to do  
> something to NOT have it disappear!?

I totally agree.

And another thing:

The "trouble" with users is the same as with cars: cars don't remain  
new very long and users don't remain lazy very long. Even I, among  
the laziest of the lazies eventually got a bit less lazy. It seems to  
me that the old lazy me would like Koch's new scheme because I would  
have had nothing to do to get going and the later less lazy me would  
also like it because I might now venture moving a few entries. (I  
take it that would not involve the terminal.)

Best regards
--schremmer