Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> writes:
> On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> > and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to read
>> > info?
>>
>> You appear to be taking a potshot, not really adding to the
>> discussion.
>>
>> I know you are not incapable of installing emacs and we both know you
>> can read info without it quite well. So I'm left wondering why you
>> add this combative post.
>
> easy - what if you need info to get networking working - and without
> networking you can not download emacs?
Once more:
users can read info with the stand alone info reader just fine.
(No need to install anything)
Users who want a more advanced way to read info may consider using
emacs. It is worth installing for many other reasons as well.
Similar to using `less' for man pages instead of the default `more'.
At least on many OS's
Emacs is not for when you don't yet have a network. Then its not an
option. Why do you continue to repeat that?
> man is easy to read. Always. Info? Not.
I respect your experience, talent and especially many contributions to
this list. But, you present your opinions as if they are acts of
nature. Its good to remember its only your opinion not a law of
physics or some other indisputable fact.
Further more its actually wrong too. The bash manual is not easier to
read in `man' as opposed to `info'. Unless you don't know how to use
info.
If you do then an indexed document with a table of contents, is going
to be `easier', in the sense that you will be able to navigate it
better and pull in relevant comments on related matters easily.
Therefore you will learn more, quicker.
If all you need is a quick search for something minor you've forgotten
then man will be the way to go. You will already have a good idea
what to search for.
>> People are discussing HTML, which of course needs some reader... I'm
>> pointing out a more advanced way to use info that may appeal to some.
>
> less can do html just fine.
None the less, a second application is required. If I recall
correctly less is not part of a stage[23] install and therefore must
be installed. But even if I'm wrong, and it is, and you don't have to
install something, we aren't necessarily talking here about the barest
bone case. You keep raising that but I've seen no one argue against
man in that event. At least not me.
Because man is available without a network does not mean it is always
better or that one should use it exclusively with or without a
network.
In a `no network' situation:
Once I've tried `man' and still have trouble, I use the stand alone info
reader.. In other words, man is my first choice. I agree that for
many things man can't be beat, but for something like the bash
documentation info is vastly superior. And if you have the
opportunity to use emacs to read the info documents.. that's all the
better.
[...]
> I used xemacs in the past - which is even better. But today kate and nano
> replaced it for me.
Once again your opinion is presented as hard fact.
My opinion is that Xemacs is NOT better and in fact is inferior in
many ways, but that is for another thread... and probably not worth
the effort anyway since that argument will take on religious overtones
very quickly.
