14 Apr
2017
14 Apr
'17
1:22 a.m.
Toby Thain <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
|On 2017-04-13 9:41 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> ...
|> i have no idea of what happened on the TeX side in the last, say,
|> about 15 years. TeXLive has always been too large for me, i have
|
|They have a small "basic" version with the essentials, a hundred
|megabytes or so.
|
|http://www.tug.org/mactex/morepackages.html
Oh, ok, now MacTeX basic, 110 MB. That is really much, much
better, for me, that is. I never used TeX since then, so i cannot
really tell -- my KerTeX repo ball is 11 MB..
...
|> My finding is that, with groff, i can produce papers (mostly
|> letters) of almost identical beauty with some fine-tuning, with
|> almost the identical number of "markup" (which is now also easily
|> typed with the american keyboard). And the fine-tuning i like,
|> because i adore the calligraphic as an art, as an act of devotion
|> of the calligrapher, to some higher spirit or the being as such,
|> and spending some seconds in some text is my simple Boche
|> equivalence to those fine spirits.
|
|Indeed, as a typographer, I believe details matter, no matter what the
|audience. I think Knuth feels the same way. :)
It is really perfectly looking. Maybe too perfect, in the
sense of, maybe even aseptic. At least when having handmade,
artistic calligraphy as a personal optimum. But this is of course
strange for business letters, and doesn't excuse irregular holes
in between words all over the page, as can be seen in
non-optimized roff.
--steffen