%\newcommand{\TUB}{\textsc{Tug}boat}
%\newcommand{\BV}{\textsl{Baskerville}}

\title{Malcolm's Gleanings}
\author{Malcolm Clark\\\texttt{m.clark@warwick.ac.uk}}

\begin{Article}
\newcommand{\dvi}{\texttt{dvi}}
\newcommand{\Gut}{\textsl{Cahiers \textsc{Gut}enberg}}

%\iffalse
\section{Out of \MF\ comes forth riches}
Dougie Henderson, who some may recall as the author of the first
practical implementation of \MF\ for the PC (marketed by Personal \TeX),
who worked with Blue Sky Research for several years (the creators of
\textsl{Textures}, still the finest implementation of \TeX\ on a
personal machine, and a version of \MF\ for the Mac), and who was a
member of the TUG board for many years, left the \TeX\ world a few years
ago to brew beer. Microbreweries are a hot item in the US: Dougie's
brewery \textsl{Hair of the Dog} won a rather coveted award for its
\textsl{Adambier} -- described as `A very full bodied, ``take no
prisoners'' beer'.  The \textsl{Malt Advocate Awards Program} selects
outstanding products and individuals in the beer and whisky industries.
\textsl{Hair of the Dog} won `Domestic Beer of the Year': to give you
some idea of their level and appropriateness, their `Import Whisky of
the Year' was a 16-year old \textsl{Lagavulin} (by coincidence a
distillery Dougie and I visited in 1993), the `Import beer of the year'
the wonderful Belgian \textsl{Duvel}, and for the `Industry Leader' they
chose Michael Jackson,  who has probably done more than any other
individual to spread the word of fine malt whisky and `craft' beers. I
think this gives hope to us all: there \emph{is} life after \TeX!

%\fi

%\iffalse
\section{Indefatigable}
Readers of the \textsl{Times Higher Education Supplement} will have seen
that Allan Reese continues his guerilla war of attrition on the
detractors of \TeX.
In the January  edition of the \textsl{Multimedia} supplement 
he comments on an article in the December supplement, correcting some
misunderstandings and misapprehensions. Another accolade to that man.
%\fi

\iffalse
\section{Spoiled for choice}
Of course, there is much to be done. I picked up a copy of a self-styled
Internet book in Dillon's CyberStation the other day, to be told that
\LaTeX\ was a Unix utility. With what confidence can I approach the rest
of this book? 
\fi

\section{Guesting}
It was pointed out that there were no gleanings in \BV\ 5(5) because I
was busy trying to knock an edition of \TUB\ into shape. As part of
Michel Goossens' scheme to revitalise TUG, it was thought imperative to
try to get  \TUB\ appearing regularly, if not on time. One ploy was to
invite (or instruct) `guest editors', thus relieving the usual crew from
some of the work, and perhaps achieving the throughput needed.

I still believe in the Internet (an act of faith, on a par with
religion --  like \TeX\ itself). But my faith was a little shaken by the
experience. Since I do not have all the various macros, classes and
paraphernalia on my local machine (far less my machine at home), I
decided to do most of the editing locally, FTP it to the \TUB\ machine
at SCRI in Florida,  use the installation there, ship the \dvi\ back by
FTP and view or print locally.
This strategy at least ensured that I was using the same files that
would be run by the editorial team for the finished copy. It also
ensured that I minimised network traffic. Text files are not too large,
and \dvi\ is also fairly compact. I had found that trying to edit over
the Internet, though possible, was painful. Even a rather dumb,
efficient, editor like \texttt{vi} could get badly out of
synchronisation. It was far easier to edit locally. Maybe it really took
the same amount of lapsed time, when you include the transfers, but the
wear and tear on my nerves was minimised. However, despite all this, I
still found that the only practical times to do the work was either
Saturday morning up to about~1 or~2 in the afternoon, or Sunday mornings
up to a similar time. The melt-down or brown out of the Internet seems
to hit about lunch time GMT, even at weekends. Sigh. 

However, the edition was eventually completed to my satisfaction. 
There were a few page breaks that could have been improved, but given
the complexity of the problem, with lots of floating figures (always the
bane of \LaTeX), I was quite happy. I would have liked to impose my own
stamp on it by adopting ragged right throughout, but it is a rather
awkward interposition, especially for a periodical which has been
`designed' for justified margins. You just cannot be sure that ragged
right will be appropriate in all circumstances. To do that you need to
redesign from scratch, the way the previous guest edited
\TUB\footnote{Volume 7(1), guest edited by David Kellerman and Barry
Smith, designed by Martha Gannett} was. Now I appreciate just how
excellent that edition was, although I was dubious of the design when I
first saw it, before my appreciation and understanding of the issues
matured.

It is  interesting  to ask what a guest editor does. I don't know
that I had a very clear brief. I decided first to assemble the papers,
using some which had been submitted to the annual conference, a couple
which had appeared elsewhere (in \BV\ and \Gut) and another I
invited. Between them I think this gave a reasonable balance, though I
was very conscious that there were some areas that needed to be filled
out more. My early plan had been to ensure that these articles hung
together, referred to one another appropriately,
were consistent in tone, used much the same acronyms and logos. In other
words, that they blended together in terms of their appearance, if not
the message of the individuals' writing. Then I discovered I should
worry about line and page breaks -- how it would appear in \TUB. This is
easily the most time-consuming part. Introducing deliberate breaks has a
tendency to alter everything that comes after; and you must also run all
the articles together since in standard \TUB\ form the next article
starts when the previous one ends. They don't start at the top of a new
page. In the end I was shipping the entire \dvi\ file across the `fat
pipe'. The front matter, end matter and page headings were the
responsibility of the rest of the editorial team. After all, I didn't
know how much front matter there was and couldn't predict page
numbers. That appears to have been the source of a problem. Somehow,
when the \TUB\ came to be printed it had the headers at the same
position on each page. Normally they would be left- and right-page
oriented. I doubt that many people would have noticed this, or, if 
they had, they would have assumed that it was a design
quirk. Unfortunately Barbara Beeton saw fit to announce it loudly to the
world as a flaw. The edition took several months from my `finishing' it
to going to print. It seems to have been thoroughly re-edited by what
was once termed the \textsc{Gnaw}.\footnote{Only a small prize for the
first correct expansion of this scurrilous and sexist acronym.} The
irony is that it was just this process which Michel sought to
eliminate. One suspects that there are mightier forces of conservatism
and inertia arrayed against him than he knows. Sigh.

It has been interesting to read the several accounts of the expected
rescheduling of \TUB. Compare the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item
16(1): ``You will receive 16(2) and 16(3) before the end of the calendar
year; 
the December issue, 16(4) will be out in early 1996.''
\item
16(2): ``\dots\ the last issue of 1995\dots\ you will hopefully receive
it in the first half of January.''
\item
16(3): ``\dots four \TUB's on our member's desks before Christmas 1995''
(i.e.\ 15(4) to 16(3)). In passing, some attention to the use of
the apostrophe is needed here, unless we really do have only one member.
I personally would worry more about grammar than running heads.
\end{itemize}
I received 16(2) in December or so, and 16(3) arrived in the first
week of January (so a very close miss): 16(4)?
Over to you Michel.

\iffalse
\section{TUG on course?}
My feelings on TUG are rather ambivalent. I served on the Board for many
years, and for one I filled the post of President. I have seen it from
the inside, and, with other members of TUG, tried hard to ensure that it
would proceed along a path which could ensure its survival. The slimming
down of the permanent staff and the greater role of volunteers were some
of the issues we tackled. Times have changed. TUG is only one \TeX\ user
group among many. \TUB\ went badly off course (I wanted it to become a
regular commercial journal with wider interests, and in fact could have
achieved that but for some conservative elements close to \TUB\
itself). The change in world politics meant that there were increased
demands for TUG to expend resource in promoting \TeX\ in areas where
there was unlikely to be any return in increased membership. The whining
from some European groups made many long-serving US members believe that
TUG should indeed be a US user group, just to be rid of this continuous
self-seeking. The distribution of the annual conference (which, to some
extend had helped support TUG financially) to forays into Europe eroded
the financial base slightly. The increased expectation that you should
get everything for free cannot help the vendors who have subsidised and
supported \TeX\ activity: just count up the advertisements in \TUB. The
fingers of one hand should be enough. 
Fortunately the ludicrous demands to print \TUB\ in Eastern Europe and
almost give it away were never enacted. That would have been a rapid
route to ruin.

The current low number of members worries me. The organisation seems to
be below a viable level. The conferences attract relatively few people
and I conclude they are largely irrelevant to the majority of members
and \TeX\ users -- or at least, that their needs are being met
elsewhere. Do people join just for the delight of \TUB? I think I have a
fairly broad interest in the subject, but most of \TUB\ leaves me cold
(with the exception of 16(2), of course!). I applaud Michel's vision for
the future, and I know he has the support of the redoubtable and
energetic Sebastian Rahtz. I'm less convinced that their efforts are
understood by the other office bearers or the permanent staff. As I
recall from my own period of office, even the best intentions can be
frustratingly difficult to achieve. Time, I think, to follow Dougie's
example and tend my fruggles.
\fi

\end{Article}