Re: The Jolly Writer

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 at 03:10, Christopher Dimech <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 11:17 AM
> > From: "Jay Belanger" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [texmacs-users] The Jolly Writer
> >
> >
> > >There is always some chestnut who likes to to point to Firefox.
> >
> > Because it's misleading even more than TeXmacs, which
> > actually is not misleading at all.
> >
> > > Firefox’s name is metaphorical.
> >
> > So it's one of your "misleading names" that you'll make
> > excuses for.  (Neither name is misleading, but apparently
> > some people really don't like TeXmacs.)
>
> It does not have as much attention as you think it does.
> Although one good thing is that it install better than
> TexLive.  The development of TexLive is screwed up something
> awful.  Still, to reach wide use it must integrate well
> with reading and producing usable latex and tex compatible
> code.  Last time I played with it, was not good.
>
> You cannot humanly read texmacs code of a document or
> modify without the editor.  What would be useful is
> visual representation of structure.
>
> > > With Texmacs, the name suggests a direct lineage or
> > > compatibility that just isn't there.
> >
> > No, it really doesn't.
> > (I'll ignore your replies of "Misleading!  Metaphorical!
> > Allegorical!  Transcendental!)
>
> Joris ought to release that book under a free license.
> Enough with the bull.
>

You have the free editor.

The Jolly Writer is not the manual. You have the free manual online.

"Gimme more free stuff"

!? I somehow don't feel motivated enough even to find the link to the
online manual for you.

Sam