OSDev.org

I'd like to enroll for this project, too. A generic, (almost) bug-free bootloader sounds like a great idea, especially since using GRUB means adding bugchecks for code that isn't yours to your own project(s).

Hi,

halofreak1990 wrote:I'd like to enroll for this project, too. A generic, (almost) bug-free bootloader sounds like a great idea, especially since using GRUB means adding bugchecks for code that isn't yours to your own project(s).

What all projects have you worked on in the past, just to get to know ya? You can PM if you want.

For the forums: it might appear as though Griwes & I haven't done much. However, we've established most of the basic structure for the bootloader. Right now, I'm learning TeX for the specifications (which should finish by 10th or so), and the specifications should be over by the end of this month hopefully.

Regards,
Shikhin

I played around with TeX and LaTeX a little myself. I would argue that they are obsolete for the following reasons:

• Today's WYSIWYG editors can pretty much handle the maintainability aspects that these systems provide.
• They merge content with presentation.

I find that DocBook addresses both points: it keeps the content and presentation separate, meaning that you are able to publish your content in a variety of formats by specifying separate stylesheets: PDF, HTML, man pages, wiki articles, EPUB, plain text, you name it. Good authoring tools also exist for it.

Hi,

Love4Boobies wrote:I played around with TeX and LaTeX a little myself. I would argue that they are obsolete for the following reasons:

• Today's WYSIWYG editors can pretty much handle the maintainability aspects that these systems provide.
• They merge content with presentation.

I'd pretty much agree with the WYSIWYG point, though merging content with presentation isn't that big of an issue for me.

Love4Boobies wrote:I find that DocBook addresses both points: it keeps the content and presentation separate, meaning that you are able to publish your content in a variety of formats by specifying separate stylesheets: PDF, HTML, man pages, wiki articles, EPUB, plain text, you name it. Good authoring tools also exist for it.

I'll look into DocBook; having some sort of a WYSIWYG authoring tool for it would be a bonus point.

Regards,
Shikhin

LaTeX is superior to WYSIWYG, which are more WYSIWTF, but the more important argument is that they don't work with version control at all, while LaTeX works really well with them.

Griwes wrote:LaTeX is superior to WYSIWYG, which are more WYSIWTF, but the more important argument

Wait, what was the less important argument? The claim that LaTeX is superior certainly isn't. The argument in favour of WYSIWYG is that it is both simpler and more productive.

Griwes wrote:is that they don't work with version control at all, while LaTeX works really well with them.

Hmm? That's like saying that you use verion control if you use an editor but you can't if you use an IDE. What is the connection?

Less important was that one before more important, huh. And meh, I misunderstood your point before. And I still don't, since DocBook seems to be just XML version of Latex, which seems silly.

You're not paying attention to what you're replying to, man.

Griwes wrote:Less important was that one before more important, huh.

In order for an argument to be more or less important, one needs at least two arguments. You only provided the one regarding version control, which is provably false: Not only is version control not limited to text files, but WYSIWYG doesn't imply any particular format---might as well be TeX.

Griwes wrote:And meh, I misunderstood your point before. And I still don't, since DocBook seems to be just XML version of Latex, which seems silly.

I explained how it is not: LaTeX does not separate presentation from content. LaTeX is a typesetting system that is a bit more high-level than TeX. On the other hand, DocBook only describes content, which can be used with stylesheets to produce documents for a huge variety of mediums.

LaTeX is definitely not WYSIWYG (you see LaTeX source, you get a document - those were different, the last time I checked). And the first argument was WYSIWTF part.

Everything that involves source code for document is by definition not WYSIWYG. And docbook is then just a bit more configurable LaTeX, but based on XML, which is quite bad for actually writing anything (writing XML by hand is awful - LaTeX is slightly better, and using WYSIWYG to write XML makes it WYSIWTF).

Not only is version control not limited to text files

Of course it's not, but it's not really suitable for storing things like ODF (which is one of those WYSIWYG thingies - again, source generating something else is *not* WYSIWYG. You got me thinking you were talking real WYSIWYG before, eh).

Griwes wrote:And the first argument was WYSIWTF part.
[...]
using WYSIWYG to write XML makes it WYSIWTF

WYSIWTF is not an argument. It's merely a pejorative. A real argument should convey some technical or practical reason against WYSIWYG. You seem to have provided a definition for WYSIWTF this time but it has nothing to do with WYSIWYG, which you originally used the pejorative for. So I still don't see what your argument was.

As you can see below, I disagree with the new definition as well.

Griwes wrote:LaTeX is definitely not WYSIWYG (you see LaTeX source, you get a document - those were different, the last time I checked).
[...]
(which is one of those WYSIWYG thingies - again, source generating something else is *not* WYSIWYG. You got me thinking you were talking real WYSIWYG before, eh)

WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) merely means that you prepare your presentation in a graphical environment which approximates the published version. It has absolutely nothing to do with encoding---LaTeX may very well be used as a back end, for example, and the same holds true for DocBook+stylesheets. In fact, most word processors today, including Microsoft Office and OpenOffice's Write, support of variety of XML-based formats. Would you argue that these are not WYSIWYG processors?

In principle, I have nothing against (La)TeX being used as a back-end. However, they are designed to be typesetting languages for people to write documents in. While with slow computers this was an advantage, today's computers used in conjunction with modern WYSIWYG processors makes this advantage go out the window. One can write DocBook documents by hand as well but, just as in (La)TeX' case, this is not a strength by any means. A good design today may not still be a good design tomorrow.

In my original response, while my first point was that this so-called strengh is not actually relevant, my second one was what I consider to be a major disadvantage.

Griwes wrote:Of course it's not, but it's not really suitable for storing things like ODF

That's very different from your original claim that "they don't work with version control at all," don't you think? I will concede the point that, for versioning systems that use a delta-like concept, is easier to pinpoint differences between different generations of a textual file, since no special tool is required. But DocBook does fit the bill.