Summary--FrameMaker on UNIX Workstations--Part I of II (long)

Subject: Summary--FrameMaker on UNIX Workstations--Part I of II (long)
From: Binion Amerson <aba -at- OC -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 13:11:34 -0600

In response to my query about FrameMaker on UNIX Workstations on 11/23/94,
I received a number of responses. As promised, here is a summary.

Here is my original post:
>Attention FrameMaker Useres:

>We are currently running FrameMaker 4.02 on Macintosh computers and are
>considering switching to UNIX workstation platforms. We would like to hear
>from other users who are running FrameMaker in the UNIX environment.

>Have you had any problems with FrameMaker on the UNIX machines?

>What UNIX hardware are you using?

>How is your UNIX system configurated?

>What Version Control software are you using for archiving FrameMakre binary
>files?

On Wed, 23 Nov 94 14:08:57 EST, rlippinc -at- bev -dot- etn -dot- com (Richard Lippincott) wrote:

>We're using FrameMaker on Unix. We're using SPARCstation 5s, with 32 meg of
>RAM and 500-meg hard drives. We're operating with the UNIX "Openwindows"
>environment. Frame is on a net server, we work on files kept on our local
>hard drives.

>We haven't had one spec of trouble with the system, we love it. Apparently
>we -formerly- (before I got here) switched from Frame on Macs to Frame on
>UNIX, and no one regrets the decision.

>We archive files using the UNIX "tar" archive system, loading files directly
>onto a tape drive. It's a little slow to operate, but it's also very
>compatible with the hardware we produce.

On Wed, 23 Nov 94 16:15:47 CST, rlosey -at- Esy -dot- COM (Richard W Losey) wrote:

>Glad to help (I like UNIX a lot more than MACs anyway!)


>: >Have you had any problems with FrameMaker on the UNIX machines?
>Nope

>: >What UNIX hardware are you using?
>We run FrameMaker 3.<something> on DEC Ultrix
>We run FM4.0 on Suns (Sparc 20s) (Solaris 2.3)
>We also run FM4.0 on MAC

>: >How is your UNIX system configurated?
>Is this anything that I've not provided above?


>: >What Version Control software are you using for archiving FrameMaker binary
>: >files?

>Not being done currently

>: >What UNIX software are you using for email? Is it a GUI interface? Can you
>: >send and receive attached files?
>Personally, I use 'mailx' (I'd prefer to use elm).
>'mailx' is NOT a GUI interface
>'mailx' allows you to receive attached files; I'm a little uncertain about
>>sending, but I think it can be done.


On Thu, 24 Nov 94 08:37:53 GMT, a responder who wished be anonymous, wrote:

>Would probably prefer any replication of this to be anonymous!
>It is certainly not to be taken as the view of my employers.

>FrameBuilder 4.0.3 site licence

>Sun (IPX, Sparc5) SunOS 4.1.3, Sun (SLC) SunOS 4.1.2,
>HP 9000 (712, 720, 735) HP-UX 9.03, Macintosh
>all at least 16MB, speed is mainly a network type problem rather than
>one of capacity of the UNIX box (but you do need at least 16MB of memory
>on Sun, no idea of minimum requirement on HP - I believe most of ours
>have 32MB)

>Builder 4.02 used to crash from time to time, seems fixed in 4.0.3
>Builder 4.02 occasionally threw away the odd graphics - not sure
>that this is fixed as it was a new bug when I reported it and
>I think 4.0.3 was already on its way at the time.
>FDK was rubbish with 4.02, seems proper release with 4.0.3
>and few problems with it so far.

>We do not use a version control system, we simply produce compressed
>tar file of the document directory and save that. I have heard that
>SCCS/RCS cannot handle the extremely long records that Frame sometimes
>produces (graphics stuff) and most CM products are based around
>one or other of these. (Frame3 could not be guaranteed to reproduce
>complete document from mif so we have avoided that approach, maybe
>Frame4 really does support mif as written by frame itself?)
>One option is to convert to HTML then put the text under RCS/SCCS
>control and save the GIF files in compressed form as separate entities;
>obviously this assumes its the content that matters, not the formatting
>or reproduction of the original pretty document.

>No cross-platform problems other than the usual ones of making
>graphics imported from Macintosh tools visible when displayed on
>UNIX.

On Thu, 24 Nov 94 10:56:31 IST, mark -at- sd -dot- co -dot- il (Mark Levinson) wrote:

>But I suspect that the difference between Mac & UNIX is
>much less important than how powerful your Mac or UNIX
>workstation is.


On Thu, 24 Nov 94 21:46:18 PST, miker -at- sol -dot- metaware -dot- com (Mike Ross) wrote:

>We are using Frame 3 on a Solbourne server, with Sun3s as X terms
>attached. It works well, and we've had few problems. The 4.0 Unix
>release was a bit buggy to start with, and we've not seen the advantage
>to upgrading, so we haven't.

>We use plain old mail, or Elm, according to taste, for e-mail. Elm
>is GUI style, mail isn't.

On Fri, 25 Nov 94 18:18:33 EST, Peter G. Ford <pgf -at- space -dot- mit -dot- edu> wrote:
>>Have you had any problems with FrameMaker on the UNIX machines?

>No, but we have limited experience with UNIX/Mac FrameMaker interoperability.

>>What UNIX hardware are you using?

>SunSPARC and DecStations

>>How is your UNIX system configurated?

>Workstations connected via LAN. One FrameMaker binary shared between
>the SPARCstations, another between the DecStations. Separate multi-user
>floating licenses for each architecture.

>>What Version Control software are you using for archiving FrameMaker binary
>>files?

>CVS/RCS control on entire binary document files. No version control within
>the documents themselves.

>>What UNIX software are you using for email? Is it a GUI interface? Can you
>>send and receive attached files?

>When swapping FrameMaker documents via e-mail, we either use Sun's
>mailtool encapsulation, which is a GUI interface that can automatically
>convert binary files to and from ASCII using the UNIX 'uuencode/uudecode'
>filters, or we save the FrameMaker documents in the ASCII-only 'MIF'
>format before sending them.


On Fri, 25 Nov 1994 21:16:32 -0600 (CST), Debbie Campbell
<dcamp -at- cs -dot- rice -dot- edu> wrote:

>I read your post about FrameMaker 4.0 for Unix. At work, I'm using both
>Frame 4 for the Mac and Unix -- I use "fetch" to transfer .mif files back
>and forth. I'm running Mac Frame on a stand-alone Quadra 610 with 8
>M RAM. I don't know the specs for the Unix machine that's serving Frame,
>but I know it's networked.

>Unix Frame: The Pros
>--------------------

> * Most of my customers have Unix machines, and the PostScript produced
>by the Mac version of Frame is not (directly) viewable under Unix. To
>correct for this, I have to "fetch" Mac .mif files over to Unix and
>create the .ps versions there. (I have, however, learned of a perl script
>that may take care of this.)

> * When we go into crunch mode, I can dial in to my Unix account and edit
>Frame docs from home, but it is very slow (via 14.4 modem).

> * When the developers in my group need DTP capability, which is rare,
>they use Unix Frame; and I think that it's usually more productive if
>we're all using the same software. (Before Frame, they would have used LaTex.)


>Unix Frame: The Cons
>--------------------

> * Cutting and pasting is not as easy under Unix. I know it sounds like a
>minor gripe, but you'd be surprised how much cutting and pasting you do
>on the Mac without thinking twice. Under Unix, to cut it's drag the mouse
>(which may be much slower than the Mac if you're running Frame over
>a Unix network), then ESC-E-X (that's ESCape-Edit-eXterminate); to
>paste, it's drag the mouse, then ESC-E-P. (If you've ever worked under ol'
>WordStar, this may sound familiar.)

> * Working with colors (Pantone, RGB, CMYK) is not as easy under Unix.

> * Working with graphics is not as fast under Unix.


>Hope it helps. I look forward to seeing your summary on the list.

On Fri, 25 Nov 1994 12:51:00 -0500, "logendra (l.) naidoo" <naidoo -at- bnr -dot- ca>
wrote:
>>
>>Have you had any problems with FrameMaker on the UNIX machines? NO
>>
>>What UNIX hardware are you using? SILICON GRAPHICS WORKSTATION
>>
>>How is your UNIX system configurated? DON'T UNDERSTAND QUESTION.
>>
>>What Version Control software are you using for archiving FrameMakre
>binary
>>files? N/A
>>


On Mon, 28 Nov 94 14:46:42 GMT, ndench -at- acorn -dot- co -dot- uk (Neal Dench) wrote:

>here's a quick reply to your post enquiring about FrameMaker for UNIX. In
>short, I have been a FM user for over 3 years, almost exclusively on UNIX
>platforms. I have used FM from time to time on other platforms, for various
>purposes, and I think I'm familiar enough with each of the environments to
>make a fair judgement. My advise would always be to go with the UNIX version
>if possible. Of course, this depends on finances an awful lot (it's by far
>the most expensive option), but if this isn't too much of a consideration,
>then UNIX gets my vote every time. Second comes Windows (it's a pretty close
>second, if you've got a good enough spec machine), although this presumably
>isn't an option for you. The Mac version comes last, IMO.

>Anyway, to answer your questions in a little more detail . . .

>In article <3b0cts$q99 -at- hermes -dot- oc -dot- com> you wrote:

>>Have you had any problems with FrameMaker on the UNIX machines?

>Well, of course this depends what sort of problems you mean ;-) If you're
>thinking of real showstopper bugs in Frame, then no, I can't think of
>anything really. In terms of stability of the Frame image, I've had
>FrameMaker sessions of several weeks (that is, start up Frame, and leave it
>running for several weeks, with open files). After a few weeks, yes it may
>crash, but that's no great problem. Chances are you'd want to restart Frame
>for other reasons before that anyway.

>I can think of a bug in fmbatch that caused me a problem once: You can't
>print a book using fmbatch if you specify a print settings file. This caused
>me a problem, since it meant I couldn't easily archive PostScript versions of
>a manual by running a Shell script overnight. But if you're moving from the
>Mac, you won't have used fmbatch yet anyway, so that won't cause you a
>problem.

>(In case you're not aware, fmbatch is a batch program supplied with UNIX
>Frame that lets you open Frame files and perform limited operations on them
>(printing, using formats, saving in different formats etc.) from the UNIX
>command line, giving you the ability to do a lot of things automatically
>using scripts. One of the big plusses of UNIX Frame is that you get extra
>bits like this.)

>>What UNIX hardware are you using?

>Fairly standard, though a bit outdated now: Sparc station 1 with 64MB of
>memory. I've used X terminals running off a Sparc Station 10 in my previous
>job. No problems with either.

>>How is your UNIX system configurated?

>Again, fairly standard: SunOS 4.1.3 running X Windows and Open Look. My
>previous job used the same, except you can swap Motif for Open Look.I've used
>Frame under a number of less standard Window Managers as well (twm, fvwm) and
>found no problems.

>>What Version Control software are you using for archiving FrameMaker binary
>>files?

>Ah, now this is where things get a little tricky. Current answer: none.
>Answer for my previous job: none, though there were moves to use an in-house
>system based on Perl and RCS.

>IMO, there is no version control software that I'm aware of for UNIX which
>lets you handle binary files in any decent fashion. There are workarounds
>that you may wish to consider though (for instance, saving files as MIF by
>default and using one of the standard version control systems, such as SCCS
>or RCS). I should add that I'm not over-familiar with version control systems
>anyway (as you can probably tell :-) so you can take my opinions on this with
>a pinch of salt!

>>What UNIX software are you using for email? Is it a GUI interface? Can you
>>send and receive attached files?

>Hmm. Currently, I don't read my email on UNIX - I use my Acorn machine (look
>at my email address: Acorn are a British computer manufacturer that produce
>machines you're either not aware of, or have forgotten about!). In the past,
>though, I've used a number of systems - most notably Rmail in Emacs, and Elm
>- both of these are PD programs. Neither of these systems use a true GUI
>interface - though they are by no means command line driven. They are both
>very powerful packages, and, IMO, easy to learn. No, they don't let you send
>and receive attached files as such, though it is very easy to
>compress/uuencode anything on UNIX and send it as part of an email message.
>It might not be an attached file as you might know it (say, the sort of thing
>you can do with Eudora), but it's not difficult to get the hang of, and you
>certainky won't find that you suddenly can't send and receive things like
>FrameMaker or PostScript files. Speaking as someone who has moved from
>Rmail/Elm to a more GUI based system, it's a toss up which I prefer, but the
>UNIX based systems tend to be more flexible.

>I believe there are UNIX mail applications appearing that have a more GUI
>based interface, though I'm not familiar with them. There are only going to
>be more of them as time goes on, though.

>So that's it - sorry this has turned out to be a bit of a diatribe. I hope
>it's helped.

See Part II

Binion Amerson

****************************************************************************
Binion Amerson, Senior Technical Writer, OpenConnect Systems, 2711 LBJ, Ste
800, Dallas, TX 75234, Ph 214/888-0447; Fax 214/484-6100; E-mail aba -at- oc -dot- com
Director-Sponsor, Society for Technical Communication (STC) Region 5.
****************************************************************************


Previous by Author: Fun with the Pentium Bug!
Next by Author: Summary--FrameMaker on UNIX Workstations--Part II of II (long)
Previous by Thread: Re: Key Words for Tech Comm
Next by Thread: Summary--FrameMaker on UNIX Workstations--Part II of II (long)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads