Re: [MiKTeX] Minimal MiKTeX

[<moh...@st...>]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:16:52 +0200, Hans Fredrik Nordhaug =20
<ha...@mi...> wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> as a response to the thread "Insane program bloat?" - see
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3Dkqifa09a83salnr98p5a1vq5=
bragvkdv17%404ax.com>
> on the comp.text.tex mailing list I made a feature request for a Mi=
nimal
> MiKTeX - download size 5-10 MB. You can look at the request here:
> <https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=3Ddetail&aid=3D955027&group_=
id=3D10783&atid=3D360783>
>
> The point of this e-mail is to get some feedback from you guys. Any=
 =20
> comments
> are good (as long as you don't mention Norway and the Eurovision So=
ng =20
> Contest in
> the same sentence).

That thread was initiated by a guy who had _never_ posted to comp.tex=
t.tex =20
before and I personally found it hard to take seriously. His reasonin=
g is =20
mainly false; he talks about a minimal (la)tex installation, but seem=
s to =20
forget that a lot have been added to the required part over the last =
five =20
years, and he's talking about the emtex release of 1990... We're talk=
ing =20
amsmath, babel, nfss, tools, etc. It cannot be as small as it was. Al=
as, =20
the price of improvement is apparently too big for him.

Claiming that this will cause backup pains is just plain foolish, tha=
t's =20
all. I don't see how that would be the case (I don't take backups of =
my =20
texmf tree, and neither does any sane person).

Other things you would often want in your minimal installation is nif=
ty =20
things like Computer Modern in Type 1 format. Anyone who would gladly=
 do =20
without raise your hand now. No? That's what I thought.

If we can make a minimal but still proper installation of 30 MB that'=
s =20
fine. Even back in the late 90's it became harder and harder to buy h=
ard =20
drives with less than 1GB of storage space, so I don't see his proble=
m =20
really.
--=20
Morten H=F8gholm