A remark is no doubt in order here about why we have chosen to discuss
, instead of
any of the (many) other 
packages that are kicking around today.
(E.g. Plain , AMS-, AMS-
, LAMS- etc.)
The short answer is that the future of -nical typesetting lies with
, and more specifically with the efforts
of 's supporters to turn the current -standard, , into the much
anticipated release of 3. supercedes its immediate
predecessor 2.09, and it contains AMS- as a subset of its
capabilities. The latter supercedes in some sense
AMS- and by combining the outstanding features of both into a single package.
In the very beginning (for those of you who can remember back then),
there was just of course Knuth's original ``bare-bones''
, which
itself is a very powerful engine (remember that all
the different ``'s'' out there today have been built on top
of Knuth's original ), but lacks
many ``ready-made''
useful macros that make typesetting a lot easier for the beginner and for the
not so technically inclined/interested user.
If you already use 2.09 and want to migrate to , consider
skimming through ``for Authors'', for changes in the
newer standard. If you have never used before and want to get
started, Lamport's book is probably the best place to begin. On the
other hand, if you insist on using an old (or arcane) flavor of \
which you have become comfortable with (over the years), then we assume
you are sufficiently competant to support yourself for the most part in
its use. If you need help -ing a document in an old version of
and run into backward incompatibility problems, then drop by the
office and ask for help.
Please bear in mind though that the
department's ability to support each and every system out there in the
vast ocean of today is
severely limited. In fact, a users' support group called
TUGboat has been formed, and you might do well to pass your more
technical questions directly on to their crew.