Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #391164 > unrolled thread

Screenplays on Linux -- another try

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 04:02 +0000
    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-22 21:27 -0700
    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-01-23 04:47 +0000
      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-22 21:59 -0700
    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 15:15 +0000
      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 17:46 +0000
        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 18:22 +0000
          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 18:34 +0000
            Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 19:42 +0000
              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 20:09 +0000
                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 20:42 +0000
                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-23 13:45 -0700
              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 20:17 +0000
                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 20:40 +0000
                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:46 -0800
                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 22:45 +0000
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-23 15:52 -0700
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-23 16:00 -0700
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 03:10 +0000
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 04:17 +0000
                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 05:04 +0000
                          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 05:47 +0000
                          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 05:51 +0000
                            Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 08:13 +0000
                              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 16:55 +0000
                                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 20:53 +0000
                                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:20 +0000
                                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:36 +0000
                                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 23:27 +0000
                                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-25 07:09 -0600
                          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 19:25 +0000
                            Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:16 +0000
                              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:31 +0000
                            Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:17 +0000
                              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 21:43 +0000
                                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 22:30 +0000
                                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-01-24 16:33 -0600
                                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 22:33 +0000
                                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-25 00:11 +0000
                                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 00:28 +0000
                                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 00:18 +0000
                                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-25 01:06 +0000
                                          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 01:55 +0000
                                          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-25 15:48 +0000
                                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 23:20 +0000
                                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 23:30 +0000
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-31 09:50 -0700
          Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-23 13:12 -0700
            Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-23 20:41 +0000
              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-01-23 13:43 -0700
                Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-01-24 01:13 +0000
                  Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-23 19:37 -0700
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 04:19 +0000
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-24 11:24 -0700
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-01-23 22:42 -0600
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-01-24 00:01 -0600
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-24 06:57 -0600
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-24 06:55 -0600
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-24 11:22 -0700
                      Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-01-24 12:28 -0600
                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 12:31 -0800
                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-24 17:09 -0700
                        Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-24 17:10 -0700
                    Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-24 11:23 -0700
              Re: Screenplays on Linux -- another try Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-01-23 18:22 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#391471

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For instance,
>> capitalization rules, etc.
> 
> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
> like a royal mess.
>

That's why you view it processed.  If looking at the processed output
helps with the creative process, then keep it up there in front and 
reprocess it every few lines you write.  That can be automated so that
it's just a click of a button.

For that matter, you could precede helpful text with a '%' so
that latex would ignore it:

\begin{dialogue}[shaking head]{toasty}
%
%                     TOASTY
%                 (shaking head)
%
If I were nine years old I might like that.
\end{dialogue}

 
> As for "massaging" Fountain, it's not that big of a deal because character
> names are capitalized in screenplays (above the dialog) anyhow. That's
> really about the only thing you need to worry about -- otherwise it's just
> mostly flowing text and line breaks. (I should mention, you fully capitalize
> a name when it first appears because that's a screenplay norm.)
> 

Sure, but the latex will just do it for you anyway.

>> The "-" in the intslug can be done with:
>> \renewcommand*{\slugspace}{ - }
>> at the beginning of the document.
>>
>> The dvi2tty output line spacing can be controlled with "-v" option.
>> (-v700000 seems to make it about right).
> 
> I'm guessing you could also find a way to include "wrylies" (the little
> comment in parenthesis under the name and before dialog) but it becomes
> complicated. 
> 

That's part of the screenplay class:

either use:

\begin{dialogue}{joe}
\paren{blah blah}

or:

\begin{dialogue}[blah blah]{joe}


>> Two men in white lab coats have just emerged from a van, and
>> Toasty is leading them to the front door.
>>
>>                                                               FADE OUT:
>> anon@lowtide:~/movie_scripts/snit$ 
> 
> I figured you could tweak the output but you're not going to get many
> writers to go through this much trouble when they've already got something
> that works perfectly with a whole let less work. 
> 

Screenplays are really a fairly simple collection of a few basic
things.  Automating those things would not be too hard.  You could
have it so that you didn't have to type anything but the dialogue
and scene descriptions if you knew all your characters in advance.
For example, a button could insert '\begin{dialogue}{snit} instead of
'\begin{dialogue}{}' for characters who get a lot of screen time.

> Another advantage of using Fountain is that you can set up the the format on
> your parser application (for example A4 vs Letter paper, size of top/bottom
> margins, etc.) and the position of the elements -- sluglines, action,
> character names, wrylies, dialog, transitions, two or one line between
> scenes, etc. -- import correctly. The Fountain markup language is totally
> independent of any particular format -- the element placement is defined by
> the parser. Fountain text files flow in correctly however you've set up your
> page.
> 

Sounds like latex.  It lets you enter your text pretty much freeform,
and the commands format it for you.

> There has been a lot of thought put into the Fountain format by two
> professional screenwriters (Fountain was originally two, separate projects
> that were merged). This wasn't something just slapped together on the spur
> of the moment -- and it has matured over several years now.
> 

Cool.

> Not that I don't understand wanting to use one tool for everything. If I
> could, I would use jstar for just about everything. But, ironically (and
> sadly), since it won't give me "virtual" carriage returns (carrige returns
> on the screen but not in the file) I can't use it for writing in Fountain
> format.
> 

I'll look into this Fountain markup more.  I know somebody who might
could put it to good use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391476

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 05:04:53 +0000, deplorable owl wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it
>>>> seems you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex. 
>>>> For instance,
>>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>>> 
>>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would
>>> be automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it
>>> looks like a royal mess.
>>>
>>>
>> That's why you view it processed.  If looking at the processed output
>> helps with the creative process, then keep it up there in front and
>> reprocess it every few lines you write.  That can be automated so that
>> it's just a click of a button.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, there's also LaTeX word processors that hid the 
> formatting codes.  I think "lyx" is one of them.  Whether or not it could 
> load your macro package, I dunno.
> 

I think you'd have to work some magic to get lyx to work with the latex
screenplay class.  lyx does have a "hollywood.lyx" thing, but it's really
broken from an input standpoint.  Dialog takes onscreen vertical jumps
while you're typing, resulting in something that doesn't at all resemble
what the output will be.  The output is correct when you process it,
but input is much less intuitive than what you have with straight latex.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391477

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/17, 10:04 PM, in article aob00q.tgu3@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>>>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For instance,
>>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>>> 
>>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
>>> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
>>> like a royal mess.
>>> 
>> 
>> That's why you view it processed.
> 
> But you still have to write it unprocessed, right? It is not like that is
> made for you.
> 

Correct.  The screenplay does not write itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391495

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/17, 10:51 PM, in article abga003.a47@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/23/17, 10:04 PM, in article aob00q.tgu3@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
>>> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>>>>>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For
>>>>>> instance,
>>>>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
>>>>> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
>>>>> like a royal mess.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That's why you view it processed.
>>> 
>>> But you still have to write it unprocessed, right? It is not like that is
>>> made for you. 
>> 
>> Correct.  The screenplay does not write itself.
> 
> Nor the code for formatting -- which was my point.
> 

Depends on how you set things up.
https://vid.me/JgqV

> In other words the writer has to think not just of their work, but of the
> tool to get the work done. This is true of any tool, of course, but what you
> are describing is more overhead unless the person has a lot of experience
> with that tool.
>

It doesn't take "a lot of experience" with latex.  For this screenplay
class, it's maybe half a dozen commands at most.

> 
> Of course, use what you like -- but do you understand why your method to
> many would not be appealing?
> 

Ron can use what he wants.  I'm just showing how I would approach it.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391570

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 1:13 AM, in article ahbu030ag.au@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ...
>>>>>> That's why you view it processed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But you still have to write it unprocessed, right? It is not like that is
>>>>> made for you. 
>>>> 
>>>> Correct.  The screenplay does not write itself.
>>> 
>>> Nor the code for formatting -- which was my point.
>>> 
>> 
>> Depends on how you set things up.
>> https://vid.me/JgqV
> 
> I prefer to use my computer as a more universal machine and not have to
> reset it for each task, but, sure, if that works for you.
>

So once a launcher gets on Mack, it never leaves?  Once the panel
is set, nothing is ever added?  
 
>>> In other words the writer has to think not just of their work, but of the
>>> tool to get the work done. This is true of any tool, of course, but what you
>>> are describing is more overhead unless the person has a lot of experience
>>> with that tool.
>> 
>> It doesn't take "a lot of experience" with latex.  For this screenplay
>> class, it's maybe half a dozen commands at most.
> 
> What you show has the text you are entering being "littered" with code that
> would be distracting to many. But if it works for you, fine. Just hope you
> do not put people down who want more of a focus on their actual work and not
> the work to get the work done.
> 

Then focus on the processed output, like I said earlier.
 
>>> Of course, use what you like -- but do you understand why your method to
>>> many would not be appealing?
>> 
>> Ron can use what he wants.  I'm just showing how I would approach it.
> 
> Fair enough. If I had to do this a lot I might get a dedicated tool, but
> first would set up styles in MS Word and then save it as a style set. I
> would do it a bit differently, but this is pretty close:
> <https://youtu.be/5hBL-Cw9YH0>.
> 

Microsoft Word is not a Linux solution, which is the subject of this
thread.

> Or I might just download one of the many templates for screenwriting and
> then alter as needed. You can even set up shortcut keys so you do not have
> to move your hard from the keyboard... none of your click, click, click
> which, you have said, leads to you drooling all over yourself. Here, a quick
> tutorial on how to do it:
>

Anything that can be done with a launcher button can be done with a hot key.

> <http://www.awn.com/blog/how-turn-microsoft-word-terrific-screenwriting-prog
> ram> OR <https://goo.gl/Uo6FlQ>.
> 
> I have done similar things with APA-modified formatting.
> 
 
Microsoft Word is not a Linux solution, which is the subject of this thread.
Not Mack solutions.  Not Windoze solutions.  Linux solutions.  Try thinking
beyond the LCD for a change, and stop gaslighting this off-topic crap into
a Linux-only thread.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391651

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 9:55 AM, in article aobob003a.ghp@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/17, 1:13 AM, in article ahbu030ag.au@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
>>> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Depends on how you set things up.
>>>> https://vid.me/JgqV
>>> 
>>> I prefer to use my computer as a more universal machine and not have to
>>> reset it for each task, but, sure, if that works for you.
>> 
>> So once a launcher gets on Mack, it never leaves?  Once the panel
>> is set, nothing is ever added?
> 
> Not even slightly relevant to the discussion... but what would make you
> think these things?
>  

What did you mean by "have to reset it for each task" then, if
not adding/removing launchers? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391662

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 1:53 PM, in article ahbua003.avae@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/17, 9:55 AM, in article aobob003a.ghp@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
>>> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/17, 1:13 AM, in article ahbu030ag.au@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
>>>>> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Depends on how you set things up.
>>>>>> https://vid.me/JgqV
>>>>> 
>>>>> I prefer to use my computer as a more universal machine and not have to
>>>>> reset it for each task, but, sure, if that works for you.
>>>> 
>>>> So once a launcher gets on Mack, it never leaves?  Once the panel
>>>> is set, nothing is ever added?
>>> 
>>> Not even slightly relevant to the discussion... but what would make you
>>> think these things?
>> 
>> What did you mean by "have to reset it for each task" then, if
>> not adding/removing launchers?
> 
> That is what I mean... for each task you end up adding and removing
> launchers.
> 

So?  A screenplay is sort of a commitment, and the launchers would
stay there for the duration.  If you have more than a few, you can
put them in a "drawer" dropdown collection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391667

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 2:20 PM, in article ahgjb003agh0.4@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>> Depends on how you set things up.
>>>>>>>> https://vid.me/JgqV
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I prefer to use my computer as a more universal machine and not have to
>>>>>>> reset it for each task, but, sure, if that works for you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So once a launcher gets on Mack, it never leaves?  Once the panel
>>>>>> is set, nothing is ever added?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not even slightly relevant to the discussion... but what would make you
>>>>> think these things?
>>>> 
>>>> What did you mean by "have to reset it for each task" then, if
>>>> not adding/removing launchers?
>>> 
>>> That is what I mean... for each task you end up adding and removing
>>> launchers.
>>> 
>> 
>> So?  A screenplay is sort of a commitment, and the launchers would
>> stay there for the duration.  If you have more than a few, you can
>> put them in a "drawer" dropdown collection.
> 
> Right... you have to make some level of commitment to THAT task...

So?  If doing a work-for-hire screenplay, then it's worth configuring
your desktop to maximize workflow efficiency for that task.  When you're
done, you change it back.

> making it
> harder to jump from task to task.

Bullshit.  How does the presence of a few launchers make it difficult
to do other tasks with the computer?

> Of course, if you have this ONLY for this
> task then that is not as much of an issue, though even then per my tastes I
> like things to be more open and flexible.
> 

No you don't.  You like the Mack Desktop Official Seal of Approval.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391728

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 2:36 PM, in article abxb120qg.ao@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/17, 2:20 PM, in article ahgjb003agh0.4@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
>>> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Depends on how you set things up.
>>>>>>>>>> https://vid.me/JgqV
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I prefer to use my computer as a more universal machine and not have to
>>>>>>>>> reset it for each task, but, sure, if that works for you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So once a launcher gets on Mack, it never leaves?  Once the panel
>>>>>>>> is set, nothing is ever added?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not even slightly relevant to the discussion... but what would make you
>>>>>>> think these things?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What did you mean by "have to reset it for each task" then, if
>>>>>> not adding/removing launchers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is what I mean... for each task you end up adding and removing
>>>>> launchers.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So?  A screenplay is sort of a commitment, and the launchers would
>>>> stay there for the duration.  If you have more than a few, you can
>>>> put them in a "drawer" dropdown collection.
>>> 
>>> Right... you have to make some level of commitment to THAT task...
>> 
>> So?  If doing a work-for-hire screenplay, then it's worth configuring
>> your desktop to maximize workflow efficiency for that task.  When you're
>> done, you change it back.
> 
> Sure: if you do that as a main job makes sense. That is what I am talking
> about -- I prefer to be able to move from task to task to task without all
> the reconfiguring, esp. manually so. But I do that a lot... jump from school
> to school to school to different clients to game-stuff I do with the family
> to working on client stuff, etc.
> 
> And many times one task can take more than one set of tools -- say you are
> doing a screenplay and also using your terminal launchers, etc. Have to set
> up both so clear off other things or have menus, etc.
> 

As I said, you can put a collection of lauchers in one drop-down "drawer."

> Again, use what works for you but I like a more open environment where at a
> moment's notice I can do pretty much any task.
>

With more labor and less efficiency.

 
>>> making it
>>> harder to jump from task to task.
>> 
>> Bullshit.  How does the presence of a few launchers make it difficult
>> to do other tasks with the computer?
> 
> If you need launcher set A for task A, and launcher set B for task B, and C
> for C, and D for D, etc. then you need to swap out sets. We already covered
> this.
> 

Nope.  You can have multiples drawers, even multiple panels if you want,
vertical (left or right), horizontal (top or bottom), multiples of each.
Keep them all if you want.  Even ten separate task-oriented collections
would not require much real estate.  But I highly doubt anybody would
have that many.


> But, sure, some tasks will not need any of the sets. But when you do then
> you are left with far more reconfiguring for one task vs. another than just
> opening a file.
> 
> But, with your window sets if you can save those and have those as a single
> click AND they are easy to set up (similar to the tabs I have shown you,
> say, or something comparable) then you can have each as a focused task. Same
> with virtual workstations.
> 
> Even if you could save your launchers as sets and have, say, a menu to swap
> them out that would be better -- though still seems like a lot of manual
> configuring just to GET to the work.
>

Nope.  You have a directory with launchers the same way I have them
for the colored xterms.  If you have half a dozen, then create
a "drawer" on the panel, and drag your launchers to it.  Takes
a few seconds.  But again, if you are a vim user, things are much
easier and don't require launchers or system hot-keys. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391828

deplorable owl wrote:

> some thing wrote:
>>
>> I like things to be more open and flexible.
>
> No you don't.  You like the Mack Desktop Official Seal of Approval.

Exactly.  Only in the upside-down world of a freedom-hating troll is
the Mac more open and flexible than GNU/Linux.

-- 
"From what I understand [Pulse] is fairly similar to SoundFlower"  -
some thing, putting its ignornance on display

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391637

On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For instance,
>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>> 
>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
>> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
>> like a royal mess.
>>
>
> That's why you view it processed.  If looking at the processed output
> helps with the creative process, then keep it up there in front and 
> reprocess it every few lines you write.  That can be automated so that
> it's just a click of a button.

Okay, I understand what you're saying but, from my point of view, it's adds
unnecessary complexity. With Fountain I just have straight text that
"emulates" the look of a screenplay. You can even indent your character
names and dialog while writing if you want, and those spaces will be ignored
when parsed (or interpreted) by your application.

Because I don't know vim, I'm much more reluctant to look into this than
folks who use vim all the time would be.

> For that matter, you could precede helpful text with a '%' so
> that latex would ignore it:
>
> \begin{dialogue}[shaking head]{toasty}
> %
> %                     TOASTY
> %                 (shaking head)
> %
> If I were nine years old I might like that.
> \end{dialogue}
>
>  
>> As for "massaging" Fountain, it's not that big of a deal because character
>> names are capitalized in screenplays (above the dialog) anyhow. That's
>> really about the only thing you need to worry about -- otherwise it's just
>> mostly flowing text and line breaks. (I should mention, you fully capitalize
>> a name when it first appears because that's a screenplay norm.)
>> 
>
> Sure, but the latex will just do it for you anyway.
>
>>> The "-" in the intslug can be done with:
>>> \renewcommand*{\slugspace}{ - }
>>> at the beginning of the document.
>>>
>>> The dvi2tty output line spacing can be controlled with "-v" option.
>>> (-v700000 seems to make it about right).
>> 
>> I'm guessing you could also find a way to include "wrylies" (the little
>> comment in parenthesis under the name and before dialog) but it becomes
>> complicated. 
>> 
>
> That's part of the screenplay class:
>
> either use:
>
> \begin{dialogue}{joe}
> \paren{blah blah}
>
> or:
>
> \begin{dialogue}[blah blah]{joe}
>
>
>>> Two men in white lab coats have just emerged from a van, and
>>> Toasty is leading them to the front door.
>>>
>>>                                                               FADE OUT:
>>> anon@lowtide:~/movie_scripts/snit$ 
>> 
>> I figured you could tweak the output but you're not going to get many
>> writers to go through this much trouble when they've already got something
>> that works perfectly with a whole let less work. 
>> 
>
> Screenplays are really a fairly simple collection of a few basic
> things.  Automating those things would not be too hard.  You could
> have it so that you didn't have to type anything but the dialogue
> and scene descriptions if you knew all your characters in advance.
> For example, a button could insert '\begin{dialogue}{snit} instead of
> '\begin{dialogue}{}' for characters who get a lot of screen time.
>
>> Another advantage of using Fountain is that you can set up the the format on
>> your parser application (for example A4 vs Letter paper, size of top/bottom
>> margins, etc.) and the position of the elements -- sluglines, action,
>> character names, wrylies, dialog, transitions, two or one line between
>> scenes, etc. -- import correctly. The Fountain markup language is totally
>> independent of any particular format -- the element placement is defined by
>> the parser. Fountain text files flow in correctly however you've set up your
>> page.
>> 
>
> Sounds like latex.  It lets you enter your text pretty much freeform,
> and the commands format it for you.
>
>> There has been a lot of thought put into the Fountain format by two
>> professional screenwriters (Fountain was originally two, separate projects
>> that were merged). This wasn't something just slapped together on the spur
>> of the moment -- and it has matured over several years now.
>> 
>
> Cool.
>
>> Not that I don't understand wanting to use one tool for everything. If I
>> could, I would use jstar for just about everything. But, ironically (and
>> sadly), since it won't give me "virtual" carriage returns (carrige returns
>> on the screen but not in the file) I can't use it for writing in Fountain
>> format.
>> 
>
> I'll look into this Fountain markup more.  I know somebody who might
> could put it to good use.

If anyone wants, I'll post a full (short) script -- the first one I wrote in
Fountain, mostly using Simplenote as the editor. It was more of a test of
Fountain than anything else -- I wanted to see how well it work out writing
from multiple machines, even an Alphasmart Neo (little dedicated word
processor that "lives" on three AA batteries for about a year). But it was
entered into (and written for) a small contest called "Bring Me the Head."
When (if you want) I can post it, you can copy it and paste it into
afterwriting.com to see how slick the whole process is. (I can't do it from
slrn as jstar will introduce hard line breaks -- so it will have to be from
Pan.)

Once I post it, if you anyone wants me to, then it might be interesting to
see how it would look LaTeX-ized. 

-- 
Using slrn with Linux Mint Mate 17.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391659

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>>>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For instance,
>>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>>> 
>>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
>>> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
>>> like a royal mess.
>>>
>>
>> That's why you view it processed.  If looking at the processed output
>> helps with the creative process, then keep it up there in front and 
>> reprocess it every few lines you write.  That can be automated so that
>> it's just a click of a button.
> 
> Okay, I understand what you're saying but, from my point of view, it's adds
> unnecessary complexity. With Fountain I just have straight text that
> "emulates" the look of a screenplay. You can even indent your character
> names and dialog while writing if you want, and those spaces will be ignored
> when parsed (or interpreted) by your application.
> 
> Because I don't know vim, I'm much more reluctant to look into this than
> folks who use vim all the time would be.
> 

That was using pluma editor and latex, with panel launchers tied to bash
scripts.  Here's basically the same thing using just vim macros:
(vidme video quality sux today for some reason, but you'll get
the idea.  Looks ok as downloaded mp4 though).

https://vid.me/dctb

@n creates a new skeleton screenplay document.
@i inserts an intslug 
@e inserts an extslug
@d inserts a blank dialog block
@s inserts a snit dialog block
@t inserts a toasty dialog block
@j builds and displays a pdf 

vim syntax highlighting works pretty nicely with latex and sets
the text off for better visual focus.

...

>> I'll look into this Fountain markup more.  I know somebody who might
>> could put it to good use.
> 
> If anyone wants, I'll post a full (short) script -- the first one I wrote in
> Fountain, mostly using Simplenote as the editor. It was more of a test of
> Fountain than anything else -- I wanted to see how well it work out writing
> from multiple machines, even an Alphasmart Neo (little dedicated word
> processor that "lives" on three AA batteries for about a year). But it was
> entered into (and written for) a small contest called "Bring Me the Head."
> When (if you want) I can post it, you can copy it and paste it into
> afterwriting.com to see how slick the whole process is. (I can't do it from
> slrn as jstar will introduce hard line breaks -- so it will have to be from
> Pan.)
> 
> Once I post it, if you anyone wants me to, then it might be interesting to
> see how it would look LaTeX-ized. 
> 

Yeah, post it.  I'll put some latex on it and see how it comes out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391666

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 2:16 PM, in article ahjb003a.gu@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Because I don't know vim, I'm much more reluctant to look into this than
>>> folks who use vim all the time would be.
>>> 
>> 
>> That was using pluma editor and latex, with panel launchers tied to bash
>> scripts.  Here's basically the same thing using just vim macros:
>> (vidme video quality sux today for some reason, but you'll get
>> the idea.  Looks ok as downloaded mp4 though).
>> 
>> https://vid.me/dctb
> 
> Looks fine on the site on macOS / Safari.

OK, must be on my end.

> Anyway, that is what I mean...
> codes on one window, launchers elsewhere,

No launchers.

> hot keys being used system wide,

No system-wide hot keys.  Just vim macros.

> output in another window.
> 

Which is great.  Separation of duties.  I guess you don't get that
idea, in the same way that you don't get the idea of DTP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391660

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 12:25 PM, in article o689nd$l72$1@dont-email.me, "RonB"
> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whatever serves your needs best, but taking a look at Fountain, it seems
>>>>> you need to massage the input at least as much as for latex.  For instance,
>>>>> capitalization rules, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I guess if you're used to looking "around" the code in LaTeX it would be
>>>> automatic and unnoticeable. But for someone who hasn't used LaTeX it looks
>>>> like a royal mess.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's why you view it processed.  If looking at the processed output
>>> helps with the creative process, then keep it up there in front and
>>> reprocess it every few lines you write.  That can be automated so that
>>> it's just a click of a button.
>> 
>> Okay, I understand what you're saying but, from my point of view, it's adds
>> unnecessary complexity.
> 
> Agreed... adding launchers not even directly tied to the program and then
> removing them and working with code and on and on and on... when you can
> just enter the text you want.
> 

So do it with vim macros and stay in vim.  The launchers were for using
some less capable editor, such as pluma.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391668

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/17, 2:17 PM, in article ahb0ag.au0tt@rooftop.invalid, "deplorable
> owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/17, 12:25 PM, in article o689nd$l72$1@dont-email.me, "RonB"
>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
...
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, I understand what you're saying but, from my point of view, it's adds
>>>> unnecessary complexity.
>>> 
>>> Agreed... adding launchers not even directly tied to the program and then
>>> removing them and working with code and on and on and on... when you can
>>> just enter the text you want.
>> 
>> So do it with vim macros and stay in vim.
> 
> That makes more sense. Can you easily swap out macro sets? If not you are
> left in a bit better of a situation but then have the issue just in vim. I
> am sure you can swap out configuration files where they are saved... though
> again we are back to having to leave the program or jump to the command line
> and type paths and the like. Guess you could alias that but now we are
> talking quite a bit of configuration again.
> 

What are you babbling about?  Vim has internal access to the shell.
@j is set to ":!pdflatex snit.tex && xpdf -geometry 1024x768 snit.pdf &"

When I want to see the output, I just type @j.

It took about 5 minutes to set up all those macros I listed.

> And even then still are left with the situation of code in one window and
> output in another.
>

That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
you want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391703

On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
> while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
> you want.

Exactly. That's why many writers still use DOS word processors (like
WordStar) or machines like the Alphasmart Neo. By using a non-WYSIWYG
application you're not obsessing over how it looks. Substance over surface.

-- 
Using slrn with Linux Mint Mate 17.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391707

On 2017-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
>> while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
>> you want.
>
> Exactly. That's why many writers still use DOS word processors (like
> WordStar) or machines like the Alphasmart Neo. By using a non-WYSIWYG
> application you're not obsessing over how it looks. Substance over surface.

Vim! ;)

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391708

On 2017-01-24, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
>>> while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
>>> you want.
>>
>> Exactly. That's why many writers still use DOS word processors (like
>> WordStar) or machines like the Alphasmart Neo. By using a non-WYSIWYG
>> application you're not obsessing over how it looks. Substance over surface.
>
> Vim! ;)

:)

-- 
Using slrn with Linux Mint Mate 17.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391753

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-01-24, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
>>>> while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
>>>> you want.
>>>
>>> Exactly. That's why many writers still use DOS word processors (like
>>> WordStar) or machines like the Alphasmart Neo. By using a non-WYSIWYG
>>> application you're not obsessing over how it looks. Substance over surface.
>>
>> Vim! ;)
> 
> :)
> 

Ron, did you see this one using vi macros?
https://vid.me/dctb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391771

On 2017-01-25, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-01-24, Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-01-24, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's the way I want it.  WYSIWYG requires focusing on the formatting
>>>>> while you write.  All latex markup can be applied after the fact if
>>>>> you want.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. That's why many writers still use DOS word processors (like
>>>> WordStar) or machines like the Alphasmart Neo. By using a non-WYSIWYG
>>>> application you're not obsessing over how it looks. Substance over surface.
>>>
>>> Vim! ;)
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>
> Ron, did you see this one using vi macros?
> https://vid.me/dctb

Now I have. It still seems like more work than is necessary, but I'm
beginning to understand why some use this method. 

-- 
Using slrn with Linux Mint Mate 17.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web