[OS X TeX] New Macros, new Engines, new TeXShop versions, and all that
messer at eecs.berkeley.edu
Sun Feb 21 23:25:44 CET 2010
I agree with your desc, and that is exactly the problem. You are
asking the user to (a) read the release notes and (b) find an obscure
directory and delete it.
Why do you want to put this burden on the user? Is software incapable
of doing this? This is like telling consumers that they have to unplug
and plug in their TV every time they turn it on. For what purpose?
More importantly, I can assure you that 90% of naive users will not do
(a) and hence not (b) also and as a result miss out on the new features.
David G Messerschmitt
Dept of EECS
University of California
On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Claus Gerhardt <gerhardt at math.uni-heidelberg.de
> Your missing the point since currently TeXShop's macro file (.plist)
> contains both default macros as well as user defined macros and TS
> cannot replace specific macros like all default macros but only
> the .plist file in toto. This is the reason for the rather
> cumbersome replacement procedure outlined in the TS's Help.
> Richard Koch's new proposition seems to accommodate naive users as
> well as educated ones: naive users are supposed to use only the
> default macros, then they could simply delete their macro file and
> restart TS. In case that they dared to install their own macros they
> have to follow the present procedure.
> In summary, for naive users the new procedure would change nothing,
> but the educated user would win a lot. So what is all the fuss about?
> On Feb 21, 2010, at 20:53, Gerrit Glabbart wrote:
>> 2010/2/21 David Messerschmitt <messer at eecs.berkeley.edu>
>> Good point, but there is absolutely nothing inconsistent between
>> (a) accommodating naive and power users differently and (b)
>> allowing users to move from the naive to the power category. All
>> you are saying is that naive users should not matter, because they
>> dont stay that way. Such a perspective is commonplace in open
>> source software, but I am arguing that naive users are important.
>> For one thing, accommodating them will attract more new users to
>> TexShop, whether or not they later turn into power users. I would
>> argue that this is good, if we wish to maximize the impact of
>> And doesn't OS X provide a mechanism for this? Default macros,
>> engines, etc. could go into /Library/Application Support/TeXShop/
>> and could easily be upgraded automatically; the current directory
>> in ~/Library/TeXShop would be the user's responsibility, should
>> they see the need. This is the way it is handled for AppleScripts,
>> PreferencePanes, Screen Savers -- all sorts of things really.
>> Or am I missing the point?
>> -- Gerrit.
>> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting -----------
>> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
>> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
>> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/
>> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting -----------
> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/
> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macostex-archives