[sdiy] A book about analogue synthesizer circuits?

[Magnus Danielson]

From: Neil Johnson <nej22 at hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [sdiy] A book about analogue synthesizer circuits?
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:46:26 +0100 (BST)

> All,

Neil,

Not that I think much will happend with a joint community effort, at least not
until I have seen it, but at least I will comment on some of the issues...

> Hosting/Location/Delivery
> ----------------------------
> 
> Ok, one major point raised was that of where to host this book.  Several
> generous people have offered websites, hosting, etc.  But, as already
> raised, what happens if that person goes away?  Having a single hosting
> point is a source of potential trouble (not saying it _will_, just that it
> _could_...)
> 
> Perhaps then I could suggest we use SourceForge as the basis for
> controlling the page files (TeX, HTML, PDF, GIF, PNG, whatever).

GIF can't be used due to patent license problems.
JPEG was also not very usefull last I checked due to patent license problems.
PNG is the only modern format worth considering IMHO.

>  This is
> a proven environment, with controllable access, used by thousands of
> projects, proven, it works.  I don't mean to diss Jezz's suggestion of PHP
> and MySQL hacking, but I think it would be better to use something already
> working so we can concentrate on synth DIY!

Please keep the turbo-icons away from core buissness. OK for additional
services like search engines etc. but core buissness should be plain HTTP
transfer of files. This to keep the core buissness mean and lean.

> Files and Formats
> -----------------------
> 
> Which brings me onto the next topic---file formats.  *shudder*  The choice
> really depends on the output format.  I think there are two viable
> contenders: HTML and PDF.  They both have the pros and cons.
> 
> With HTML the pages are directly viewable in most browsers, would be
> easily accessable to blind readers (HTML->speech), and so on.  Downside is
> that the page layout is dependent on the browser, and to be global we'd
> need to restrict ourselves to a proven subset of HTML (not a bad thing in
> my view).  I.e. no frames, no CSS, no layers, just tables, lists,
> paragraphs and pictures.  Speaking of which, JPEG for photos
> (lossy-compression fine) and GIF for diagrams (lossy-compresion BAD).
> PNG would keep the Stallmanites happy, but not every browser supports PNG.

That isn't a real issue last time I checked. You don't have to be a Stallmanite
to duck for GIF, it's an issue of keeping your wallet safe from attack, which
comes in a different category. JPEG has the same problem.

The only unencumbered picture format worthy of consideration should be PNG.
I'd like to see JPEG alongside it, but some morons went to court over it ;(
Please tell me they lost their case bigtime!!!

> The other contender, PDF, is perhaps more viable (a modern version of
> Postscript, to keep Magnus happy :-)

Not quite, but I agree it is a good format most of the times.
However, in order to work with a large range of PDF browsers restrictions on
which features to use must be setup.

> Then we get the issue of page size.  I propose we choose A4---it is an
> international standard that most countries (*cough* USA *cough*) have
> adopted, so when you print out pages on your printer then what is printed
> should match what is on the screen.

Agreed. ISO A4 paper format is the way to go. I even know americans who use it
even when being in america, since it is the only sensible paperformat in his
mind. He even found himself a store on Manhattan that has all the A4/A3 paper
stuff he needs.

> Assuming we go the PDF route, the next question is _how_ we generate the
> PDF.  Ok, so us lucky Mac owners can just do a print-to-file to generate
> PDF, but not everyone has seen the light :-)

That stuff exist in both Windows and UNIX too.

> With my academic hat on I'd suggest LaTeX as the way forward :-)  It is
> platform neutral, the software is freely downloadable (not everyone here
> can afford the Microsoft Tax, or even wants to) and is *THE BEST* for
> doing anything involving equations, tables, figures, etc.  Practically
> _all_ academic papers are written in LaTeX (and you can always spot those
> that aren't :-).  Again, as with HTML the idea is that the author
> concentrates on the content, and the software concentrates on the page
> layout.  The editorial team decides on the "style" (writes a document
> style file) and the authors concentrate on the words.
> 
> True, there is a bit of a learning curve, but once you get your head round
> it, its much better than Word for actually writing (rather than bashing
> out three-page company memos).  It is industrial-strength: try putting a
> 1,000-page book through Word; LaTeX will just sit there munching away util
> the job is done.

LaTeX is very nice, but it becomes Oh-so-nicer when you run LyX
(http://www.lyx.org) which gives you a WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Meant)
editor/wordprocessor which works _really_ nice these days. I use it all the
time. Wonderfull for the math-excesses that I am into. I'm still fairly bad on
both TeX and LaTeX but I make documents using them in the backend and the
learning-curve isn't steep at all. I can export into HTML, SGML, TEX, DVI,
PS, PDF, TEXT etc. etc. etc. I draw my pictures in XFIG and nowdays can
directly import them into LyX. There are other tools than XFIG, but DIA et. al.
isn't ready for real work like XFIG is, so XFIG it is. LyX also has an
increasing support for LaTeX styles for various publishers and I have had
great success with using the IEEE style (the new one).

So, shortstory: Edit in LyX and use the power of the TeX/LaTeX infrastructure.
Benefit: Fairly platform-independent and free of charge, fairly easy to
install and get started with.

MS Word? I use it in my profession and after disabling zillions of automatic
feature it is only a minor annoyance, but not the way I would like to work with
a word processor.

Open-Office? Promessing but WAY to slow and still too many bugs and
missfeatures for the way I work. Doesn't replace my LyX environment and the
formel editor stinks, even worse than MS Word's which actually works but isn't
as smooth as Lyx'es.

Anyway, I have my own projects to attend to.

Cheers,
Magnus