Re: New Web Site
Looks GREAT! I think is looks great also. One comment I get a lot from friends is, "Is that a baby's pacifier?", referring to Plucker graphic here, but also the icon on the Palm. I tend to think it looks like a pacifier myself (maybe you have to be a parent). Doesn't look link a chicken, so what is it? :-) ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: New Web Site
> One quick question. Where do I download the 1.2 source?? It isn't on > the downloads page. A few ways, via cvs (cvs link) or the Snapshot link. I'll pull the plucker_1_2 tag, pack it up and put it on the download page for people who wish to download that directly instead of pull from HEAD. Good tip, thanks. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
New Web Site
Looks GREAT! One quick question. Where do I download the 1.2 source?? It isn't on the downloads page. Chris Christopher R. Hawks Software Engineer Syscon Plantstar a Division of Syscon International - "As a computing professional, I believe it would be unethical for me to advise, recommend, or support the use (save possibly for personal amusement) of any product that is or depends on any Microsoft product." -- David H. Wolfskill, in alt.sysadmin.recovery ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: new Web site
> Great work! Looks very nice in Mozilla (actually, Chimera). I > particularly like the gallery. Thanks. The gallery is going to be "collapsed" a bit. I found a place where I can consolidate some images and get more use out of the screen area. More tinkering, but the skeleton is there, and that's the important part. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: new manual in TexInfo format?
> David, what is the preferred format generally? I'm not Tex or LaTex > (casing?) comfortable, but work decently well with XML and am > exceptionally comfortable with HTML. I'm partial to SGML as a core format, others may differ. > I'm doing the Guide in HTML simply because it's universal, but it's, as > you state, not scalable... just changing the table of contents can be > manky if you don't use XML or other advanced features. Exactly why I don't like handling HTML directly anymore. If you add a TOC element in HTML, you now have to make sure you add that same element on the page/anchor it references, etc. What if you forget? Is the link orphaned? With SGML this isn't easily possible. I'm going to revisit TeX again and see if it would also work. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: new manual in TexInfo format?
At 06:32 PM 10/18/2002 -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote: I'm all for whatever can help us _EASILY_ maintain the manual as we add features and functions to it. Also, it's important that the manual generate validatible code, which many of the standard generation tools do not. Maintaining the manual in TeX or HTML format (as a base) is just not going to scale soon as the project grows.. David, what is the preferred format generally? I'm not Tex or LaTex (casing?) comfortable, but work decently well with XML and am exceptionally comfortable with HTML. I'm doing the Guide in HTML simply because it's universal, but it's, as you state, not scalable... just changing the table of contents can be manky if you don't use XML or other advanced features. Tony McNamara ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
new Web site
Great work! Looks very nice in Mozilla (actually, Chimera). I particularly like the gallery. Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: documentation on the Web site?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002, Bill Janssen wrote: > Right now it takes one to the HTML version of the user manual, which > is buggy and out-of-date. The Viewer chapter is up-to-date ;-) /Mike ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: new manual in TexInfo format?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> For ILU, we used something called TIM, which is TexInfo Macros --
> basically a feeble macro front-end for TexInfo. The macros added URL
> links and images, which at the time weren't in TexInfo. It looks to me as
> if Texinfo 4.2 will support both.
Is this something the general user will either have installed on his
system, or be able to install on his system (to generate their own version
of the manual) without a great deal of difficulty? (i.e. apt-get install)
I'm all for whatever can help us _EASILY_ maintain the manual as we
add features and functions to it. Also, it's important that the manual
generate validatible code, which many of the standard generation tools do
not. Maintaining the manual in TeX or HTML format (as a base) is just not
going to scale soon as the project grows..
d.
perldoc -qa.j | perl -lpe '($_)=m("(.*)")'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.1.92 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9sIwdkRQERnB1rkoRAhvyAKDGb7NDIZ8AS+HDu21z0zsnLeR3ZgCgps3u
+xMB9dkPmF9urqqiKm9ToD4=
=UBEi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
new manual in TexInfo format?
I've been pondering re-writing the User Manual, but I'd like a more friendly primary format. I'm partial to TexInfo, which produces TeX (and thus PS and PDF) outputs, as well as HTML and Info (which can be loaded into Emacs for handy reference). For ILU, we used something called TIM, which is TexInfo Macros -- basically a feeble macro front-end for TexInfo. The macros added URL links and images, which at the time weren't in TexInfo. It looks to me as if Texinfo 4.2 will support both. Any other ideas? Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: documentation on the Web site?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I'd like to suggest that the "Docs" link on the Web site be expanded.
> Right now it takes one to the HTML version of the user manual, which is
> buggy and out-of-date. There's a lot of other documentation.
I literally just unpacked plucker_docs-1.2.tar.gz into there for
now, but one of my next tasks is to completely rewrite those docs, cleaning
up the bits that are deprecated (OS2 support?) and add the newer features
(Plucker Desktop [Fringe Ryder's tutorial?], Java distiller, pler, etc.),
and also to try to convert them into something more manageable (SGML/TeX).
Docs are easy, but boring. I'll take the lead on this one.
> I'd like to suggest that the "Docs" link take a visitor to a page with
> links to the User Manual, an HTML version of the plucker-build.1 man page,
> the FAQ, the AUTHORS, the COPYING, the CREDITS, and the NEWS. Is that
> doable?
Absolutely, give me a few days to regenerate some neurons. My
intention was to provide a page, stylized like the rest of the site, that
would lead the user into the "manual", and link to the other items we
support for docs (manpages, READMEs, etc.).
d.
perldoc -qa.j | perl -lpe '($_)=m("(.*)")'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.1.92 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9sIrVkRQERnB1rkoRAuleAJ9nj9noD6JxywrnIqSdEpGA5FALVQCg4CIw
yp/FFQCTZYG2CbebzK0UO7Y=
=dTyz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
documentation on the Web site?
I'd like to suggest that the "Docs" link on the Web site be expanded. Right now it takes one to the HTML version of the user manual, which is buggy and out-of-date. There's a lot of other documentation. I'd like to suggest that the "Docs" link take a visitor to a page with links to the User Manual, an HTML version of the plucker-build.1 man page, the FAQ, the AUTHORS, the COPYING, the CREDITS, and the NEWS. Is that doable? Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Accept the license or don't *use* Plucker? (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
> I still think it is a good idea to display the license to the user, > but I have my doubts about the accept/decline options ;-) Good points. The Mac installer program forces the use of accept/decline, too. I could move the licence display to the README file, instead of putting it in the "licence" window. Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Accept the license or don't *use* Plucker? (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
I should also mention that, that this accept/decline GPL is just for the Windows installer. In the Linux RPM, there is just a copy of the GPL in the docs directory, and IIRC an entry was put into the .spec file to say the licence is GPL, so that will show up in the package manager. And the GPL is in the online help. Best wishes, Robert ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: Accept the license or don't *use* Plucker? (was: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit)
On 18 Oct 2002 at 15:24, Michael Nordström wrote: > > User has to select the 'I accept' radio button on the license screen, > > if they want to continue with rest of install. If don't like the GPL, > > then they can choose not to install. > > One problem with that "license agreement" is that you don't have to > accept GPL to *use* the program. The license only applies when you > want to distribute the program (or a modified version.) This is valid. Though in reality, as you say the most relevant part says that if you modify and distribute this software, you have to release the source. If they are just planning to use, then that the clause doesn't apply, the answer is then "Yes", they accept the agreement, and the program continues. It might be a bit of wading through a lot of clauses to find that out though ;-) I am a bit leery of making "short form summary" of the GPL though, since it is long so that it has adequate protection when people try to break it. > I still think it is a good idea to display the license to the user, > but I have my doubts about the accept/decline options ;-) The installer framework has two slots available: One is a license agreement slot with accept/decline radiobuttons, the other is just a non-interactive regular message. GPL can be moved over from one to the other if needed, though it would be nice to keep the message slot open for a changelog type of description of what is new. There is also a copy of the license as part of the online help. Best wishes, Robert ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Accept the license or don't *use* Plucker? (was: owner_id_build vs.copyprevention_bit)
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002, Robert O'Connor wrote: > User has to select the 'I accept' radio button on the license screen, > if they want to continue with rest of install. If don't like the GPL, > then they can choose not to install. One problem with that "license agreement" is that you don't have to accept GPL to *use* the program. The license only applies when you want to distribute the program (or a modified version.) And we don't really have to *ask* anyone to accept the license; if they don't accept the license they are not allowed to copy, modify, and/or distribute the program. GPL grants you rights, unlike "normal" EULAs that takes away rights (and a lot of the crap included in the EULAs are probably not even legal:) I still think it is a good idea to display the license to the user, but I have my doubts about the accept/decline options ;-) Just some food for thought. /Mike ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
