On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >> In other words, take a text doc, convert it to a single HTML
> > >> page, put some links in it there and there, a TOC, and INDEX, and
> > >> a bunch of <NAME> anchors and you've got basically what I'm
> > >> looking for... I can use LYNX easily, but info doesn't cut it
> > >> for ease of accessing information. A more appropriate name for
> > >> the program is "impossinfo" or "deinfo" or even better
> > >> "info-withnobasenamedocumentation". ;o)
> > >>
> > >> Heheh. Don't you love trashing programs that suck? ;o) Gets
> > >> some steam off... ;o)
> > >>
> > >
> > >Please reread this slowly three times: "Info pages are supposed to be
> > >read with Emacs not with info".
> >
> > Supposed to? Says who? So I'm _supposed to_ learn emacs, which
> > I have no use for, just so I can have a better UI to info
> > documents? Sorry, no thanks. info2html is the better UI for me.
> >
>
> You are not supposedc to learn Emacs. You are supoposed to read info
> pages with it and that is a different thing. It provides aUI whose is
> leagues ahead of lynx's. About Info the progarm I agree: it was
> designed for masochists. But you see its target was VI users...
I am also on the "I hate info" bandwagon, but thought I would try your
suggestion: "You are not supposed to learn Emacs. You are supoposed to
read info pages with it". I have one simple quesiton:
How do I read Info pages with Emacs?
I tried "man info" (which doesn't exist), "info info", "man emacs" (which,
ironically, told me "The primary documentation of GNU Emacs is in the GNU
Emacs Manual, which you can read on line using Info" -- NOT emacs!). I
didn't try "info emacs" because I hate using "info" and couldn't bear
wading through the emacs info pages with it to answer this simple
question.
So how is this supposed to be a more intuitive way to get at vital system
documentation? Just how much time and I supposed to spend trying to
figure out how to read Info pages the "easy" way??? As far as I can tell,
your suggestion is not documented. THIS IS A BAD SITUATION FOR SYSTEM
DOCUMENTATION.
Btw, I have two *major* peaves w/ Info:
- Why oh why isn't there a man page describing the virtues of Info and
how to read info pages?
- I'm not much of a programmer, but would it be that tough to create
a code that would convert Info pages into man pages? Maybe not pretty
ones, and maybe they should have a disclaimer at the top urging the
reader to use Info, but at least get the _content_ into the man page
world.
Like it or not, 99% of the time, when somebody wants documentation on a
command in Unix, they type "man". If there is no man page for that
command, the user is now immediately frustrated. MAN PAGES ARE THE
STANDARD METHOD OF DOCUMENTATION ON UNIX SYSTEMS. This is the reality.
You may want something new/better/different. fine. But if you don't put
your content in man pages as well, you will (I repeat WILL, guaranteed)
frustrate many users.
If you don't care about all users, then exclusive use of Info et al is
fine. But this would be a sad "if" to admit.
If any of you Red Hat guys are still reading (prolly not), this is also a
gripe I have with your software contributions: very few man pages. It
can't take too long to make a 10-line man page for things like up2date
etc. Same goes for GNOME stuff.
-matt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Nelson
Dynamics Technology, Inc.
21311 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503-5610
Voice: (310) 543-5433 FAX: (310) 543-2117 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
