On Samstag 07 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote: > 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) >
no they can't. The standard info reader is a horrible, horrible mess. Navigating is a nightmare, the information you are looking for might be hidden *somewhere* and if you are really lucky isn't even there at all. But you can't find out quickly. I had to help a lot of people in the past who were not able to find anything in info because of the chapters and hard ways to navigate it. > > 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. > Thanks for the sweets but I am not the only one who thinks that info is the worst way to display information. Sure, some people love it. But a lot of people don't. And what you just told me is true for you too: just because you like it doesn't make info a good tool. > 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. I have never been able to find information in info quickly. I do have found information in man pages VERY quickly. > >> 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. you recall wrongly. less is part of stage1 and stage3. > 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. even busybox has an built in less. You can't go much 'barest bone' than just busybox. > > 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 for everything else from cat, dd, tar to unzip, watch, wget, zcat. man is superior. Even gcc manpage is much easier to read than info gcc. > And if you have the > opportunity to use emacs to read the info documents.. that's all the > better. or maybe the only way without getting lost? > [...] > > > 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. where? Because of the 'xemacs is even better'? Well, you are stating all the time that info is perfect for big things like bash - and then you are critizing me for stating unsupportable hard facts? Pretty ironic, don't you think? > 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. which does not change the fact, that for me (!): a) xemacs was better b) kate&nano are better than xemacs and c) when I have to use emacs, I am missing both nano and kate.
