[OS X TeX] 64-bit binaries in TeXLive 2010
herbs at wideopenwest.com
Sat Dec 5 10:19:48 EST 2009
On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Alain Schremmer wrote:
> 1) Being behind does not mean being lost. I am still using GWTeX. And if, for some reason, I couldn't anymore, I could always upgrade to TeXLive2008 which, I assume is still going to be available.
If you were to update why would you go to TeX Live 2008 instead of 2009? There will be no more updates to 2008 while 2009 will have a year of easy updates to fix bugs, etc. Hmmm... you would have to update your OS to 10.5.8 so that TeX Live Utility (TLU) can easily do its update job; I know you're Terminal phobic so dealing with tlmgr directly wouldn't work.
The main reason to update is to get bug fixes. In terms of the OS 10.5.8 is as far as you PPC system can go and it will still get security fixes and Panther will miss. I think that's worth the change.
> 2) The issue, I think, is whether or not the new features should be made available on older systems and given 1), I really do not see why as it is then the user's choice: to stay with what s/he has or to pay the price for availing her/himself with the new improved.
Many of the new features are available as individual packages that you must manually install. Sometimes package interdependence means you must update a set of packages and that isn't always obvious until you try to use them. It's much nicer to just use TLU!
> 3) There are features and then there are features. I wouldn't upgrade for speed as things as they are are already too fast for my slow brain. But suppose TeXShop under Snow+1 were to feature a split output window synchronized with the split source window or a source collapsible to sections or both. Now, there I would immediately upgrade to Snow+1.
I think you can say that about anybody; we each have our individual ideas about what point we feel the need to update.
>> This just pushes the question back to the developer tools and compilers, etc. Why should *they* move ahead in a manner that makes the software developed with them
> obsolete? If so, because it makes for sales, and, in the case of free software, because, like the Everest, it is there.
Given that folks putting together the ``free'' software have no profit motive it usually means that there are feature changes and/or bug fixes if they put in the time to issue an update. It also isn't always obvious that there was a problem unless you run into it directly; that doesn't mean it won't bite you in the future.
>> LaTeX itself, of course, is remarkably stable, one of its central virtues, designed precisely to avoid these problems with new OS's and hardware.
>> I think that Windows OS's are supported for a long, long time?
> docx? (or was that a joke?)
Please don't equate M$'s profit motive to anything TeX. I haven't seen arbitrary changes in TeX Live just to force change.
On the other hand I know, from my small experience of helping folks with some problems here and elsewhere, that having to figure out a problem that someone is having with, e.g., gwTeX gets difficult since I no longer have gwTeX on my system for testing purposes. Support for older systems would mean that I would have to have them all on my system. If others would be willing to pay for the multiple processor, OS versions and TeX distribution versions it would make it easier. ;-) Right now I've got TeX Live 2008 and 2009 and I'll soon be removing 2008 to get a bunch of space back; I've already removed it from my older PPC system. At some point I'll just have to say UPDATE!
(herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
More information about the MacOSX-TeX