Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:38:07PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote: | dman wrote: | ... | > info2vim converter then I could be happy :-). If you don't already | > know : vim allows for hyper-links (start with :help) that can be | > followed with ^] and ^T takes you back where you were before. | | and for those who really didn't know: you can 'hyperlink' your code | (at least c, c++, perl, probably other languages as well) using *tags | programs (etags for c/c++ and maybe others, ptags for perl). The command is 'ctags', the package is "exuberant-ctags". It supports something like 15 languages now. It's really cool. See the project site on Sourceforge if you want more details. -D -- If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. I John 1:8
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
> I know that many GNU tools have nice HTML and PS/PDF documents available > on gnu.org, and the TOC resembles what I've seen in 'info'. With good reason. Try 'apt-cache show texinfo'. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
dman wrote: ... > info2vim converter then I could be happy :-). If you don't already > know : vim allows for hyper-links (start with :help) that can be > followed with ^] and ^T takes you back where you were before. and for those who really didn't know: you can 'hyperlink' your code (at least c, c++, perl, probably other languages as well) using *tags programs (etags for c/c++ and maybe others, ptags for perl). erik
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote:
...
I'm not sure where in the thread my comments belong so I'll put them
here.
| So what is it that makes you (and others) react so vehemently?
I've tried to use info a few times, and it is always difficult. The
keybindings are unnatural to me -- I use vim, less, and bash regularly
(readline is set to "input-mode vi"). The info keys seem much more
like emacs (which I've used, but rejected in favor of vim). Sometimes
I've managed to use it a bit, but other times it tells me there is no
link under the cursor (what, "Next" isn't a link!?). I use man a lot
since I know the layout of a manpage and I can view it easily ('less').
I think that info is ok for a book-like document. I know that many
GNU tools have nice HTML and PS/PDF documents available on gnu.org,
and the TOC resembles what I've seen in 'info'. I also like how the
reader has the choice (for HTML anyways) of one-massive-page,
one-page-per-chapter, or one-page-per-section. I like the second for
on-line viewer and the first for printing.
If someone made decent manpages (for reference), _and_ if they made a
info2vim converter then I could be happy :-). If you don't already
know : vim allows for hyper-links (start with :help) that can be
followed with ^] and ^T takes you back where you were before.
-D
--
He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear
is that you do not belong to God.
John 8:47
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:49:40PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: | On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:25:09PM -0500, David Teague wrote: | > I LIKE emacs. We were using vi as our only text editor with System V | > machines in the late 80s. I found and installed Emacs, within one | > week everyone on my faculty was using emacs. | | Given a 1980s-era vi, I'd probably have gone for emacs too. Unbound | cursor keys, single-level undo, counter-intuitive screen updates with | 'c', no backspace across line endings or even the point where you | started the current round of insertion, etc. | | Fortunately vi implementations like vim have moved on considerably since | then. While they share vi's basic interface, its heritage of user | interface bugs is barely recognizable. I find traditional vi quite a | mental jolt now. I agree with this. My first encounter with 'vi' was /bin/vi on Solaris systems. According to :version it is real vi, not a clone. It is fine for tweaking your shell config, but not for writing code. I tended to use nedit because it wasn't _too_ slow over a dialup and many times better than effielbench (yeah, I learned eiffel my first year at school, fall of '98). Later I taught myself emacs (with help from Harley Hahn's book). However the following quarter I had to use win95 systems on which we were not "allowed" to install software. vim fit on a floppy so I used it (better that DOS "edit"). I learned how to configure vim to be very comfortable, and I found the vi-style commands easier to remember. Now my IDE consists of vim in combination with a Unix environment (cygwin if it must be). -D -- What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 8:36-37
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:25:09PM -0500, David Teague wrote: > I LIKE emacs. We were using vi as our only text editor with System V > machines in the late 80s. I found and installed Emacs, within one > week everyone on my faculty was using emacs. Given a 1980s-era vi, I'd probably have gone for emacs too. Unbound cursor keys, single-level undo, counter-intuitive screen updates with 'c', no backspace across line endings or even the point where you started the current round of insertion, etc. Fortunately vi implementations like vim have moved on considerably since then. While they share vi's basic interface, its heritage of user interface bugs is barely recognizable. I find traditional vi quite a mental jolt now. You can even have vim start up in insert mode, with graphical menus and a completely different set of keybindings, and generally act like a less buggy version of Windows Notepad now if you so choose, although it's not a set-up I like myself. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Man deprecated, Info not there, -doc package? (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:26:56PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 08:07:40AM -0600, Colin Watson > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > No, usually what's happened in these cases is that the man page is in > > the main package while the info pages are in a separate -doc package > > which you haven't got installed. When you type info, it can't find the > > real info page, so it reverts to its neutered "try to view man pages" > > mode instead. > > Hmm... > > If this is the case, I'd suggest it's a bug in Debian, and the man page > should indicate that, not only is the Info page preferred, but that, if > it's not found on the system, the appropriate Debian -doc package should > be installed. I agree. Filing bugs like that would be worthwhile. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On 26-Dec-01 Karsten M. Self wrote: > The problem isn't just vi, though. _Most_ Unix commands are based on > mnemonic, consonant-heavy, abbreviations: ls, cd, rm, mv, ll, who, vi, > ps, mutt, df Most of these are balanced between left and right > hands, leading to good natural rhythems, many are based on home-row > keys, etc. Two of the most annoying Dvorak keytrokes are 'ls' (both > right pinky) and 'cd' (right middle top row, right index home left > reach). It sounds trivial, but you end up typing these repeatedly, and > the motor memory is hard to break. While that last sentence is very true, it's not an argument for or against any particular keystroke combinations. If you change keyboard layout, you have to re-learn. And if you change back, you have to re-adapt. For what it's worth, if I have a long session at the computer keyboard (e.g. writing a report), then it takes a short while before I can play the piano properly again. And vice versa. It's Karsten's "motor memory" thing. I have to "flush the motor buffers", so to speak. But this doesn't mean that I should re-write the music, nor that I need a "piano locale" on my computer ... Best wishes to all, Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972 Date: 26-Dec-01 Time: 09:41:17 -- XFMail --
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: ... > The problem isn't just vi, though. _Most_ Unix commands are based on > mnemonic, consonant-heavy, abbreviations: ls, cd, rm, mv, ll, who, vi, > ps, mutt, df Most of these are balanced between left and right > hands, leading to good natural rhythems, many are based on home-row > keys, etc. Two of the most annoying Dvorak keytrokes are 'ls' (both > right pinky) and 'cd' (right middle top row, right index home left > reach). It sounds trivial, but you end up typing these repeatedly, and > the motor memory is hard to break. alias the party spoilers! even without funny keyboard layout problem I usually have l aliased to my favourite ls -??? considering there are not many (none?) one letter common unix programs you have 26 shortest possible command names for your ergonomic needs (YOU already know that but I guess it might be helpful to some other members of the list, there's a solution for almost any problem) erik
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:55:10PM -0500, Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" writes: <...> > > I don't dislike emacs keybindings per se (I find most legacy MS > > Windows- centric word processors unusable because I expect to find > > C-a, C-e, C-k, C-p, C-n, C-s, C-r, etc., on them. Abiword's > > supposed to have an emacs mode though I haven't got it to work). > > That said, I find vi a more comfortable editor generally. > > The thing that really bothers me about vi is that it's very > QWERTY-centric and feels very awkward with another layout, like > Dvorak. The most often-used keys are chosen due to their position in > the home row, and are completely meaningless in any other context (for > example, j moves down, k moves up???). I have to agree. I taught myself Dvorak at one point (about ten days to get over the hump), and found it worked relatively well for text editing in, say, a standard word processor. But it absolutely blows chunks with vi. The problem isn't just vi, though. _Most_ Unix commands are based on mnemonic, consonant-heavy, abbreviations: ls, cd, rm, mv, ll, who, vi, ps, mutt, df Most of these are balanced between left and right hands, leading to good natural rhythems, many are based on home-row keys, etc. Two of the most annoying Dvorak keytrokes are 'ls' (both right pinky) and 'cd' (right middle top row, right index home left reach). It sounds trivial, but you end up typing these repeatedly, and the motor memory is hard to break. > Emacs' key bindings, however, are not aimed toward any particular layout > but instead are often chosen as abbreviations of English words (C-n = > next line, C-p = previous line, C-s = search, etc.). Since the Dvorak > layout has the most commonly used letters in the home position, these > key bindings tend to feel more natural on Dvorak (at least to me). Interesting, hadn't considered that. Then again, who wants to remember that escape-x-alt-control-left shift-b puts you into super-edit-debug-compile mode? ;-) I've always found the emacs keystrokes to be considerably _anti_-ergonomic. Pessimal, really. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpiMePMwYx8m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
"Karsten M. Self" writes: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:38:43AM -0500, Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > "Karsten M. Self" writes: > > > > > - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use > > > emacs, isn't particularly usable, and is about as intuitive > > > as...well, emacs. This has changed as additional viewers are > > > avilable (e.g.: pinfo -- based on lynx...but, of course, I don't > > > care for lynx's keybindings, and use w3m instead) > > > > Funny, I prefer w3m over links and lynx because of its emacs-like key > > bindings. :) > > W3M has, to my mind, fewer surprises. One of the things about Info is > that an awful lot of key combinations lead you places, from whence > returning is difficult. It's also easier IMO to find and read the help > reference in W3M. Riddle me this, but I find a full-screen help page > much more useful than a half-height one such as you get with emacs, vim, > or info. I've come to use 'screen' extensively, and find that I'm more > comfortable rapidly cycling between multiple full buffers than trying to > read two half-height windows. Aw, come on, this is emacs. I'm sure there's a way to customize it so that it won't split the window when showing a temporary help buffer. Or C-x 0 (that's a zero) will get the job done too. > I don't dislike emacs keybindings per se (I find most legacy MS Windows- > centric word processors unusable because I expect to find C-a, C-e, C-k, > C-p, C-n, C-s, C-r, etc., on them. Abiword's supposed to have an emacs > mode though I haven't got it to work). That said, I find vi a more > comfortable editor generally. The thing that really bothers me about vi is that it's very QWERTY-centric and feels very awkward with another layout, like Dvorak. The most often-used keys are chosen due to their position in the home row, and are completely meaningless in any other context (for example, j moves down, k moves up???). Emacs' key bindings, however, are not aimed toward any particular layout but instead are often chosen as abbreviations of English words (C-n = next line, C-p = previous line, C-s = search, etc.). Since the Dvorak layout has the most commonly used letters in the home position, these key bindings tend to feel more natural on Dvorak (at least to me). -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bignachos.com
Re: The Info v. Man War of 2001 (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 05:28:56PM -0600, Bud Rogers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tuesday 25 December 2001 16:52 pm, Henrik Enberg wrote: > > > But none of the current browsers I'm aware of has the index and > > searching facilities that info has. When I'm stuck with html > > documentation I'm always extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find > > what I'm looking for. > > Me too. And when I'm stuck with info documentation I am often > extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find what I'm looking for. I > don't think that is an info vs html issue. I think it is a problem not of > the document format or protocol, but of the structure of the document > itself. The problem is not the tool used to produce the document > but the person producing the document. > > In defense of info I would say this: it predates html. Actually, they're very nearly coincident. The info changelog starts with a June 26, 1988 entry by RMS. Tim Berners-Lee's work on HTML and the World Wide Web started at CERN in 1988: In 1980 I played with programs to store information with random links, and in 1989, while working at the European Particle Physics Laboratory, I proposed that a global hypertext space be created in which any network-accessible information could be refered to by a single "Universal Document Identifier". Given the go-ahead to experiment by my boss, Mike Sendall, I wrote in 1990 a program called "WorlDwidEweb", a point and click hypertext editor which ran on the "NeXT" machine. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ShortHistory.html Various concepts concerning hyperlinked texts have been kicked around since, depending on your perspective and definitions, the 1980s, 70s, 60s, or 50s, with the work of Marshal McLuhan and Vannevar Bush. By the mid-1980s, there was already a hypertext conference...and Jakob Nielsen was there: http://www.useit.com/papers/tripreports/ht87.html By that time, we'd already seen Ted Nelson's Xanadu proposal, the Apple Hypercard stack, work by Xerox (another blown PARC chance...), The Nielsen report makes for IMO interesting reading, it's a good historical referrent from just before the emergence of a number of systems we're currently discussing. Interesting is footnote 10, which refers to the "getting lost" problem. There are additional "early / precursor days of the Web" reports at: http://www.useit.com/papers/tripreports/ > AFAIK it was the first widely known or used hypertext documentation > protocol. Not quite, by 10-20 years depending on your reckoning. But one of the earlier implementations. > In criticism of info I would say this: it predates html. Heh! > AFAICT it hasn't changed a bit. We have learned a quite a bit about > hypertext since info was developed. Info was a marvel in its day, but > it is IMHO simply obsolete. > > Now I'm not trying to defend html in particular, although well written > html documentation can be very nice to read and quite intuitive to > navigate. So too can info, for that matter. I would much prefer well > written, well structured documentation in some more universal format, > like docbook, which can produce output to suit the reader's > preference. Those who prefer html or postscript or pdf or plain text > or even info for that matter, can read the docs in the format they > prefer. That's what I'd like to see. Agreement. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpVHF8J5nII0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Twin towers (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 04:42:20PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:40:46AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: ... > > I was only surprised by the vehement nature of your dislikes, but > > I think I see. The main problem you and others have with info are: > > > > 1) you don't know the keys to use > > No. For the nth time: it's the binding of content to a specific > browsing tool. Okee, the keys are no problem then, though from most of your other reactions it sure seemed like a really hot item. But the nth time mentioned thing seems strange to me, as there is info2www proving the content isn't bound to info. There are other info replacing browsers AND I stronly believe it to be possible to derive info pages formatted in many a ways as to serve the browser of your liking given that the info pages are described in TeX (texinfo to be precise). Okee you have to write a whatever-suits-you driver in TeX, but then you get to browse them in whatever way you like. The most widely used texinfo converter in use produces the normal info pages geared to be browsed with an info like browser, but I doubt there is a fundamental problem with writing your own converter. Much like nroff files can be printed on a laser printer or viewed on a text only screen. > > 2) the FSF put a ban on manpages > > Yes. Given that my number 1 was wrong and your number 1 is mute I take it that this is the real reason for your vehement dislike of info. If so, it's no info you dislike, it's loosing manpages that you hate. Let me restate then a heartedly me too. -- groetjes, carel
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 15:25:09 -0500 (EST) > From: David Teague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > Html information browsed with a decent TEXT mode browser that is > intuitive (OK I know one man's intuitive is another's nightmare) . . > . [snip] Off topic, & drifting . . . . One of the greatest sins chargeable to Microsoft is debasement of the language, notably in reducing `innovative' to `Different, esp. as practiced in Redmond.' As for `intuitive' in computing, it has been perverted to `the way I'M used to doing things.' Or, worse, `in the Microsoft Way.' The word is no longer useful to the pure in heart. Let's leave it to billg & minions. Wendell Cochran West Seattle
Twin towers (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:40:46AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:38:49PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL > > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > ... > > > > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the > > > > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable > > > > format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook > > > > capable of creating multiple output formats. > > > > > > I don't get this, just as I don't understand people bashing Stallman. > > > What is it in the program that is so horrible to ***DESPISE*** it? > > > ...all of Karsten's objections snipped > > Help, I didn't mean to start a war, Whaddya expect if you fly your hijacked civillian email plane into the spiritually symbolic twin towers of man and info ;-) > I was only surprised by the vehement nature of your dislikes, but > I think I see. The main problem you and others have with info are: > > 1) you don't know the keys to use No. For the nth time: it's the binding of content to a specific browsing tool. > 2) the FSF put a ban on manpages Yes. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgp15jptis6LO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:16:15PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: ... > > I see. So you're surprised by all those web pages that have next, and > > previous buttons too:) > > Previously addressed: there is a distinction between navigation native > to the _browser_ (following the browser history), and to that native to > the _content_ (following the document hierarchy). Info blends these, to > its loss IMVAO. right and wrong. The distinction is sound, and *kept* by info. Up, next and previous are document content related, and last is browse history related. But using last you get easily lost, because a reverse of last is missing:( -- groetjes, carel
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:38:49PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > ... > > > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the > > > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable > > > format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook > > > capable of creating multiple output formats. > > > > I don't get this, just as I don't understand people bashing Stallman. > > What is it in the program that is so horrible to ***DESPISE*** it? > ...all of Karsten's objections snipped Help, I didn't mean to start a war, I was only surprised by the vehement nature of your dislikes, but I think I see. The main problem you and others have with info are: 1) you don't no the keys to use 2) the FSF put a ban on manpages Let me start with 2. I personally don't like the deprication of man pages either. It is a good place to lookup syntax, options and the like. For deeper insight a suplementairy format like info is better suited, but nothing beats a manpage if you only have to lookup the name of an option [okee program --help]. But man bash is a nightmare. Best would be if the man pages could be derived from the info pages, skipping much of the deeper stuff. The anwser to 1 is simple: learn it;) (<--- note there is a smily there) For search you might try the vi-like / (be aware that ? is bound to help) The nice thing of the search is that it's a multi page and even a multi file search. So unlike web pages, the search is not restricted to the currently viewed page, but covers all of the info document. Or use i (and ,) to search the index, almost like using a real book:) -- groetjes, carel
Re: The Info v. Man War of 2001 (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
On Tuesday 25 December 2001 16:52 pm, Henrik Enberg wrote: > But none of the current browsers I'm aware of has the index and > searching facilities that info has. When I'm stuck with html > documentation I'm always extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find > what I'm looking for. Me too. And when I'm stuck with info documentation I am often extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find what I'm looking for. I don't think that is an info vs html issue. I think it is a problem not of the document format or protocol, but of the structure of the document itself. The problem is not the tool used to produce the document but the person producing the document. In defense of info I would say this: it predates html. AFAIK it was the first widely known or used hypertext documentation protocol. In criticism of info I would say this: it predates html. AFAICT it hasn't changed a bit. We have learned a quite a bit about hypertext since info was developed. Info was a marvel in its day, but it is IMHO simply obsolete. Now I'm not trying to defend html in particular, although well written html documentation can be very nice to read and quite intuitive to navigate. So too can info, for that matter. I would much prefer well written, well structured documentation in some more universal format, like docbook, which can produce output to suit the reader's preference. Those who prefer html or postscript or pdf or plain text or even info for that matter, can read the docs in the format they prefer. That's what I'd like to see. -- Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All things in moderation. And not too much moderation either.
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 12:01:43AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:41:19PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:57:27PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > dman writes: > > > > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. > > > > > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, > > > and ENTER? > > > > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path > > through the documentation tree (as they would in, say, a web browser, > > which is, along with 'less', the most common text-reading environment > > most of us know. > > I see. So you're surprised by all those web pages that have next, and > previous buttons too:) Previously addressed: there is a distinction between navigation native to the _browser_ (following the browser history), and to that native to the _content_ (following the document hierarchy). Info blends these, to its loss IMVAO. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpsBNgmpBnob.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Info v. Man War of 2001 (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:52:45PM +0100, Henrik Enberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" writes: > > > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:07:23PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > >> I thought you were a man page enthusiast. Now you want html > >> documentation? IMHO html is a lousy choice. > > > > It's a well known standard. I know a lot of people (including many > > nontechnical ones) who spend hours in a web browser. I don't know many > > people (including many technical ones) who spend comperable time in the > > info browser. It's a familiarity issue. Sometimes the familiar is > > superior to the "good". Say what you will about the Web, it abstracts > > content from the reading tool. I can read with Galeon, Mozilla, Konq, > > MSIE, w3m, lynx, links, or dumped to a textfile and paged with less [1]. > > But none of the current browsers I'm aware of has the index and > searching facilities that info has. When I'm stuck with html > documentation I'm always extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find > what I'm looking for. This is where the Unix philosophy takes over: simple tools, with well-defined tasks. Browsing and navigating content is one task. Searching and indexing it another. So you create a second tool to do the indexing. The search/index functionality of info should be extractable as a CGI or similar utility. A good browser (or command-line tool) will allow you to access that CGI readily, including by keystroke, if you wish. > [...] > > > Having spent a half hour or so browsing info pages via Web through > > dwww, I have to say that info makes worse web pages than either man > > or DocBook, though the DocBook document structure resembles the info > > structure largely. > > This probably has something to do with the conversion. I'm not > familiar with dwww, but I personally think that texi2html (you'll need > the texi sources) creates better html pages than anything you can get > out of a man page. AFAICT, dwww uses info2html. > > Note too: with DocBook, you've got the option of splitting a document > > at major section breaks, or dumping it as One Big File®, depending on > > your SGML parsing arguments. Anyone know if Info's got a similar > > functionality? > > texi2html does, if you have the texi sources. Thanks. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgppFpMoRinUU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:41:19PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:57:27PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > dman writes: > > > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. > > > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? > > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path > through the documentation tree (as they would in, say, a web browser, > which is, along with 'less', the most common text-reading environment > most of us know. I see. So you're surprised by all those web pages that have next, and previous buttons too:) > I constantly find myself surprised with where info wants to take me, and > perplexed at how to get back to where I wanted to be. Ah, at last I can full heartedly agree with you:) Especially when dealing with nested uses of the Last button, I get lost and often have to go back to the top level of the document. -- groetjes, carel
Re: The Info v. Man War of 2001 (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
"Karsten M. Self" writes: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:07:23PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: >> I thought you were a man page enthusiast. Now you want html >> documentation? IMHO html is a lousy choice. > > It's a well known standard. I know a lot of people (including many > nontechnical ones) who spend hours in a web browser. I don't know many > people (including many technical ones) who spend comperable time in the > info browser. It's a familiarity issue. Sometimes the familiar is > superior to the "good". Say what you will about the Web, it abstracts > content from the reading tool. I can read with Galeon, Mozilla, Konq, > MSIE, w3m, lynx, links, or dumped to a textfile and paged with less [1]. But none of the current browsers I'm aware of has the index and searching facilities that info has. When I'm stuck with html documentation I'm always extremely annoyed about how hard it is to find what I'm looking for. [...] > Having spent a half hour or so browsing info pages via Web through dwww, > I have to say that info makes worse web pages than either man or > DocBook, though the DocBook document structure resembles the info > structure largely. This probably has something to do with the conversion. I'm not familiar with dwww, but I personally think that texi2html (you'll need the texi sources) creates better html pages than anything you can get out of a man page. > Note too: with DocBook, you've got the option of splitting a document > at major section breaks, or dumping it as One Big File®, depending on > your SGML parsing arguments. Anyone know if Info's got a similar > functionality? texi2html does, if you have the texi sources. Henrik -- For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it. -- George W. Bush
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 11:38:43AM -0500, Brian Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" writes: > > > - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use > > emacs, isn't particularly usable, and is about as intuitive > > as...well, emacs. This has changed as additional viewers are > > avilable (e.g.: pinfo -- based on lynx...but, of course, I don't > > care for lynx's keybindings, and use w3m instead) > > Funny, I prefer w3m over links and lynx because of its emacs-like key > bindings. :) W3M has, to my mind, fewer surprises. One of the things about Info is that an awful lot of key combinations lead you places, from whence returning is difficult. It's also easier IMO to find and read the help reference in W3M. Riddle me this, but I find a full-screen help page much more useful than a half-height one such as you get with emacs, vim, or info. I've come to use 'screen' extensively, and find that I'm more comfortable rapidly cycling between multiple full buffers than trying to read two half-height windows. I don't dislike emacs keybindings per se (I find most legacy MS Windows- centric word processors unusable because I expect to find C-a, C-e, C-k, C-p, C-n, C-s, C-r, etc., on them. Abiword's supposed to have an emacs mode though I haven't got it to work). That said, I find vi a more comfortable editor generally. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgp8ly9g71hHq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Man deprecated, Info not there, -doc package? (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 08:07:40AM -0600, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:21:55AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:54:36AM -0200, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL > > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:38:49 -0800 > > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > > ...followed by dire warnings that the manpage may not be updated, > > > > etc., etc. At which point the pitiless reader turns to the info > > > > document...which in many cases is a copy of the same manpage (now > > > > presented in an unfamiliar document viewer). Houston, we've got a > > > > problem. > > > > > > This is the choice of debian maintainers. > > > > Looks to me more like someone dropped the ball. "Gee...GNU doesn't do > > man pages, so we'll note that in the man page, but I don't feel like > > writing an info page". > > No, usually what's happened in these cases is that the man page is in > the main package while the info pages are in a separate -doc package > which you haven't got installed. When you type info, it can't find the > real info page, so it reverts to its neutered "try to view man pages" > mode instead. Hmm... If this is the case, I'd suggest it's a bug in Debian, and the man page should indicate that, not only is the Info page preferred, but that, if it's not found on the system, the appropriate Debian -doc package should be installed. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpzHEicVObcU.pgp Description: PGP signature
The Info v. Man War of 2001 (was Re: Where do you RTFM ?)
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:07:23PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I wrote: > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? > > Karsten M. Self writes: > > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path > > through the documentation tree... > > What does that have to do with my question? 14 and green ducks. > > ...as they would in, say, a web browser, which is, along with > > 'less', the most common text-reading environment most of us know. > > I thought you were a man page enthusiast. Now you want html > documentation? IMHO html is a lousy choice. It's a well known standard. I know a lot of people (including many nontechnical ones) who spend hours in a web browser. I don't know many people (including many technical ones) who spend comperable time in the info browser. It's a familiarity issue. Sometimes the familiar is superior to the "good". Say what you will about the Web, it abstracts content from the reading tool. I can read with Galeon, Mozilla, Konq, MSIE, w3m, lynx, links, or dumped to a textfile and paged with less [1]. > Michael Mauch writes: > > What's wrong with the (L)ast key? And then, of course, you have the > > (S)earch key and most of the times an (I)ndex. > > And, of course, there is 'info info' for those who actually want to learn > to use info. As I noted: the 'man' man page is transitive between man and info -- you can get the full man page from within info. The 'info' documentation is assymetric: you can't get useful information from within man, which, if it's your preferred or known environment, is where you know how to operate. This is a Bad Thing®. Having spent a half hour or so browsing info pages via Web through dwww, I have to say that info makes worse web pages than either man or DocBook, though the DocBook document structure resembles the info structure largely. Note too: with DocBook, you've got the option of splitting a document at major section breaks, or dumping it as One Big File®, depending on your SGML parsing arguments. Anyone know if Info's got a similar functionality? Peace. Notes: 1. Not uncommon for me when snarfing content with lynx -- I *really* don't care for default lynx colors and navkey bindings, and haven't been able to grok its config file to change this. W3M wins heavily over lynx for the former's ease of configuration. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpdYA3CsX1dB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 07:18:08PM +0100, Michael Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Karsten M. Self schrieb: > > > on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:57:27PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > dman writes: > > > > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. > > > > > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? > > > > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path > > through the documentation tree (as they would in, say, a web browser, > > which is, along with 'less', the most common text-reading environment > > most of us know. > > I don't see how a web browser could change the order of the pages ;-) It changes the expectation of browsing. Plus, the browser's *own* forward / back / up buttons follow the path of your browsing session, not of the document hierarchy. > > I constantly find myself surprised with where info wants to take me, and > > perplexed at how to get back to where I wanted to be. > > What's wrong with the (L)ast key? Discovering it. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpu6v65UgRuT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 10:06:38AM +, Anthony Campbell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On 24 Dec 2001, Gary Turner wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:07:41 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > >on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich ([EMAIL > > >PROTECTED]) wrote: > > >> Hi All ! > > >> > > >> When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > > > > >I consider this acceptable only IITTNTRFMTFR [1] > > > > > Thanks, Karsten. When I query the list, it's because I couldn't find > > the answer in the manual nor in the 8 or 10 books on my desk. Worse, I > > found the answer when I didn't need it and can't find it when I do. > > > [snip] > > I've often had this problem. I therefore keep a file called tips, in > which I store useful-looking hints and answers posted here and elsewhere > in reply to other people's queries. Even if they are not immediately > relevant to me, they quite often become so later. I do something similar, it's my linux/linux mail folder (dunno why I call it that). Particularly insightful responses get stuffed there. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpwDjeX0CDL8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
Karsten I LIKE emacs. We were using vi as our only text editor with System V machines in the late 80s. I found and installed Emacs, within one week everyone on my faculty was using emacs. That said, every other point you make here is RIGHT ON. I find info to be arcane, inspite of its keystrokes being emacs like. Html information browsed with a decent TEXT mode browser that is intutive (OK I know one man's intuitive is another's nightmare) browser inteface. OK put the keystrokes at the bottom of the page like Pine or Pico. Karsten's response to Carel is omitted. On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > ... > > > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the > > > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable ... YEA! --David David Teague, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Because software support is free, timely, useful, technically accurate, and friendly. (I hope this is all of the above.)
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
I wrote: > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? Karsten M. Self writes: > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path through > the documentation tree... What does that have to do with my question? > ...as they would in, say, a web browser, which is, along with 'less', the > most common text-reading environment most of us know. I thought you were a man page enthusiast. Now you want html documentation? IMHO html is a lousy choice. Michael Mauch writes: > What's wrong with the (L)ast key? And then, of course, you have the > (S)earch key and most of the times an (I)ndex. And, of course, there is 'info info' for those who actually want to learn to use info. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
Karsten M. Self schrieb: > on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:57:27PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > dman writes: > > > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. > > > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? > > How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path > through the documentation tree (as they would in, say, a web browser, > which is, along with 'less', the most common text-reading environment > most of us know. I don't see how a web browser could change the order of the pages ;-) > I constantly find myself surprised with where info wants to take me, and > perplexed at how to get back to where I wanted to be. What's wrong with the (L)ast key? And then, of course, you have the (S)earch key and most of the times an (I)ndex. Regards... Michael
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
"Karsten M. Self" writes: > - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use > emacs, isn't particularly usable, and is about as intuitive > as...well, emacs. This has changed as additional viewers are > avilable (e.g.: pinfo -- based on lynx...but, of course, I don't > care for lynx's keybindings, and use w3m instead) Funny, I prefer w3m over links and lynx because of its emacs-like key bindings. :) -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bignachos.com
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On 24 Dec 2001, Gary Turner wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:07:41 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > >on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >wrote: > >> Hi All ! > >> > >> When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > > >I consider this acceptable only IITTNTRFMTFR [1] > > > Thanks, Karsten. When I query the list, it's because I couldn't find > the answer in the manual nor in the 8 or 10 books on my desk. Worse, I > found the answer when I didn't need it and can't find it when I do. > [snip] I've often had this problem. I therefore keep a file called tips, in which I store useful-looking hints and answers posted here and elsewhere in reply to other people's queries. Even if they are not immediately relevant to me, they quite often become so later. Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - running Linux GNU/Debian (Windows-free zone) For an electronic book (The Assassins of Alamut), skeptical essays, and over 150 book reviews, go to: http://www.acampbell.org.uk/ Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. [Carl Sagan]
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:21:55AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:54:36AM -0200, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:38:49 -0800 > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > ...followed by dire warnings that the manpage may not be updated, > > > etc., etc. At which point the pitiless reader turns to the info > > > document...which in many cases is a copy of the same manpage (now > > > presented in an unfamiliar document viewer). Houston, we've got a > > > problem. > > > > This is the choice of debian maintainers. > > Looks to me more like someone dropped the ball. "Gee...GNU doesn't do > man pages, so we'll note that in the man page, but I don't feel like > writing an info page". No, usually what's happened in these cases is that the man page is in the main package while the info pages are in a separate -doc package which you haven't got installed. When you type info, it can't find the real info page, so it reverts to its neutered "try to view man pages" mode instead. (Usual disclaimer: I'm not a fan of info either. Maybe I should turn man-db into a GNU package, just for the sheer irony value? :)) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:52:46AM -0800, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:54:36AM -0200, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL > > PROTECTED]) wrote: > ... > > > One of the declared aims of info is to provide a frame to write > > > introductions or tutorials which wouldn't fit well into a man page, > > > because that is limited to a reference manual. > > > > This is a supplemental function. This documentation shouldn't attempt > > to replace something it can't: a basic usage reference. > > exactly. IMO info is a big failure, it tries to replace something it > cannot replace by it s definition (it clearly has different purpose > than the manpage) and info reader sucks big time according to opinion > of fairly huge number of people. yes, there are other ways to read > info pages but all references are alays 'run info'. the default reader > should be something usable. > > info as such might be useful, man page clearly cannot cover ALL the > documentation needs. why didn't they think of an easy way to create a > man page from info? a sort of 'executive summary'? Bingo. I've discussed this issue in the past with Brad Kuhn (haven't quite worked up to bringing it up with Stallman), and I copied Brad on my entry on this thread. There is a man-like summary which can be extracted from the Info format and turned into something remotely resembling a man page, somewhat in the way a cat might be said to resemble a horse: neither can operate a can opener. There are worse legacy standards stuck within computer concepts than the man page. I suspect one of the attractions of Info is that it is directly translateable into book formats, which themselves provide revenues to the FSF. Again, it would seem that adopting DocBook would further this aim, allow inclusion of a manpage (hey, it's another reference section within the document). Anyhow, I suspect I've made my views fairly clear ;-) Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgplRhJWpOW0U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:54:36AM -0200, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: ... > > One of the declared aims of info is to provide a frame to write > > introductions or tutorials which wouldn't fit well into a man page, > > because that is limited to a reference manual. > > This is a supplemental function. This documentation shouldn't attempt > to replace something it can't: a basic usage reference. exactly. IMO info is a big failure, it tries to replace something it cannot replace by it s definition (it clearly has different purpose than the manpage) and info reader sucks big time according to opinion of fairly huge number of people. yes, there are other ways to read info pages but all references are alays 'run info'. the default reader should be something usable. info as such might be useful, man page clearly cannot cover ALL the documentation needs. why didn't they think of an easy way to create a man page from info? a sort of 'executive summary'? erik
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 03:54:36AM -0200, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:38:49 -0800 > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > - It attempts to replace, not augment, an existing, established, > > viable, useful, and effective standard. This is almost always a bad > > idea. The far better tack: provided augmented functionality. If > > your solution is compelling enough, people will transition. > > Right, but doesn't apply here. Wrong. If your explicit policy is "deprecate manpages in favor of info pages", you're replacing functionality. I've documented this from the gcc manpage, it's a typical example. GNU Info is used to replace manpages. It leaves packages with incomplete, outdated, or missing man pages. This is a Bad Thing®. > > - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use <...> > Inconsequent. Man requires groff and a pager. A pager is a non-specific reader. > I can't read SGML or XML (but hate them), specially when created by > some `intelligent tool' with no human digestable linebreaks. I'm not talking about the composition tools, I'm talking about the _viewing_ tools. Non sequitur. <...> > Man pages stop being useful when they get too long. Try locating a > short word in man bash. /\ Or, for a context search: man bash | col | grep -w at ...returns 81 lines, which can then be looked at fairly readily or searched with additional context: /character at point > Also, IMHO, I don't think a slash for searching forward and a question > mark for back is intuitive, at least not more than Ctrl-S (search) > Ctrl-R (reverse search). It's not intuitive, that's somewhat my point. But it *is* learned, particularly if you're using more/less and/or a vi clone frequently, or other tools (e.g.: w3m) which use vi keys. As it happens, info allows use of vi keys (didn't know this until today), and the C-s and C-r keys are among the emacs bindings I do recall more readily. FWIW, I use emacs mode for command line editing in bash. I'm not fully locked into one mode of thinking. _But_, what I _don't_ know are multi-line and multi-buffer navigation keystrokes, which are necessary in info. The point isn't which mode is "more intuitive", it's whether or not the commonly used tools allow the option to select an environment that's comfortable to the user. Info perforce constrains this choice. It doesn't matter if you prefer searching with '/', with C-s, or by touching your tongue to your nose, Info restricts the tools available to you. > > - It fragments the documentation effort. GNU favors info. Debian > > favors manpages (I've written on this in the past, references > > supporting both claims are available). > > Probably true, but people still can choose, unless they get > consistently bashed for it. You can only choose if you're writing the documentation on your system. As it is, Debian prefers manpages: Debian Policy, 13.1, Manual Pages: Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manpage included in the same package. It is suggested that all configuration files also have a manual page included as well. <...> Even though the GNU Project do not in general consider the lack of a manpage to be a bug, we do. > > - Info and man serve different functions. Man is meant to be a quick > Both, man and info have a learning curve. ***ACCESSING*** a man page -- the task of opening and navigating the document itself -- doesn't have a _separate_ learning process. Accessing an info page does. _Understanding_ a man page is admittedly an art. Ditto an Info page. Info throws two hurdles at the user, man only one. > One of the declared aims of info is to provide a frame to write > introductions or tutorials which wouldn't fit well into a man page, > because that is limited to a reference manual. This is a supplemental function. This documentation shouldn't attempt to replace something it can't: a basic usage reference. > > This man page is not kept up to date except when volunteers want > > to maintain it. If you find a discrepancy between the man page > > and the software, please check the Info file, which is the > > authoritative documentation. > > This is the choice of the program's authors. For someone crowing over the advantages of Info and its benefits in conveying information, you seem to have a fundamental comprehension problem: This is _NOT_ a statement of author's choice, it's _GNU's POLICY_. > > ...followed by dire warnings that the manpage may not be updated, > > etc., etc. At which point the pitiless reader turns to the info > > document...which in many cases is a copy of the same manpage (now > > presented in an unfamiliar document viewer). Houston, we've got a > > problem. > > This is the choice of debian maintainers. Looks to me more like someone dropped the ball. "G
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:38:49 -0800 "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > - It attempts to replace, not augment, an existing, established, > viable, useful, and effective standard. This is almost always a bad > idea. The far better tack: provided augmented functionality. If > your solution is compelling enough, people will transition. Right, but doesn't apply here. Info does augment manpages. First it fulfills the purpose of the manpage, giving exact and complete information through the reference sections, and then it augments the limited sections of a manpage by free chapters which try to explain the issue in human language, often with tutorials and examples. > - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use > emacs, isn't particularly usable, and is about as intuitive > as...well, emacs. This has changed as additional viewers are > avilable (e.g.: pinfo -- based on lynx...but, of course, I don't > care for lynx's keybindings, and use w3m instead), but it's not > fully remedied the problem. The authoring markup is distinct from > both manpages (groff) and DocBook (SGML). Inconsequent. Man requires groff and a pager. I can't read SGML or XML (but hate them), specially when created by some `intelligent tool' with no human digestable linebreaks. You need a tool to write _and_ to read them. You can write and read info files in any text viewer/editor including less. Of cource, then you'll lose the cross references, but this those wouldn't work with XML either. Man pages stop being useful when they get too long. Try locating a short word in man bash. Also, IMHO, I don't think a slash for searching forward and a question mark for back is intuitive, at least not more than Ctrl-S (search) Ctrl-R (reverse search). Also, I'll always consider more intuitive and human readable \TeX syntax than .groff, .gro^_off-text or. > - It fragments the documentation effort. GNU favors info. Debian > favors manpages (I've written on this in the past, references > supporting both claims are available). Probably true, but people still can choose, unless they get consistenly bashed for it. > - Info and man serve different functions. Man is meant to be a quick > reference, putting the most likely needed information -- command > arguments and use -- first. For Info, you've got to dig to get to > this. It's like the "entrance tunnels" that some web wanks were > advocating for websites for about fifteen minutes in 1997. Like I > want to open four pages to get to your site Info puts shit in > the way of what I'm looking for. Both, man and info have a learning curve. That you forgot about yours concerning man doesn't make this untrue. One of the declared aims of info is to provide a frame to write introductions or tutorials which wouldn't fit well into a man page, because that is limited to a reference manual. Info also provides that. If I already know a program but need to remember some option or syntax, I'll use for instance info's command reference, but if I don't know the program, and may be really don't have an idea what it is about, I'll read the info from the beginning to the point where I got the idea. > - It splits a programs docs into multiple pages. In electronic > format, single, large, documents which can be searched through > readily (gee: that sounds like a manpage under 'less') is more > useful than a set of smaller docs which can't be as readily scanned. Try Ctrl-S, which will search through all files. Don't want to type info? You also can use (z)grep (same work but less useful). > - GNU project manpages frequently include a passage: > > This man page is not kept up to date except when volunteers want > to maintain it. If you find a discrepancy between the man page > and the software, please check the Info file, which is the > authoritative documentation. This is the choice of the program's authors. We'll have to respect it. And some will be more happy (me) than others (you) :-) > > [Taken from the gcc manpage] > > ...followed by dire warnings that the manpage may not be updated, > etc., etc. At which point the pitiless reader turns to the info > document...which in many cases is a copy of the same manpage (now > presented in an unfamiliar document viewer). Houston, we've got a > problem. This is the choice of debian maintainers. > The basic concept is valid. However, what seems to have happened in the > world is that we got several rival document and hypertext languages in > about the same five minute period of 1987. Tim Berners-Lee happened to > win the race. Ironically, man pages translate quite well to HTML, and > DocBook / LDP has largely filled the niche Info is more suited to: > providing a more substantial, book-styled, document suitable for > browsing rather than a quick reference. If I can open info on any termina
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 08:57:27PM -0600, John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > dman writes: > > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. > > What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? How about the fact that NPU have no relationship to your _own_ path through the documentation tree (as they would in, say, a web browser, which is, along with 'less', the most common text-reading environment most of us know. I constantly find myself surprised with where info wants to take me, and perplexed at how to get back to where I wanted to be. > I use both info and Emacs and don't find info Emacs-like at all when > not run from inside Emacs. It's rather more like emacs than, say, less. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgp5oLsBzlcEA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > ... > > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the > > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable > > format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook > > capable of creating multiple output formats. > > I don't get this, just as I don't understand people bashing Stallman. > What is it in the program that is so horrible to ***DESPISE*** it? - It attempts to replace, not augment, an existing, established, viable, useful, and effective standard. This is almost always a bad idea. The far better tack: provided augmented functionality. If your solution is compelling enough, people will transition. - It's (largely) bound to a specific viewer. Which, if you don't use emacs, isn't particularly usable, and is about as intuitive as...well, emacs. This has changed as additional viewers are avilable (e.g.: pinfo -- based on lynx...but, of course, I don't care for lynx's keybindings, and use w3m instead), but it's not fully remedied the problem. The authoring markup is distinct from both manpages (groff) and DocBook (SGML). - It fragments the documentation effort. GNU favors info. Debian favors manpages (I've written on this in the past, references supporting both claims are available). - Info and man serve different functions. Man is meant to be a quick reference, putting the most likely needed information -- command arguments and use -- first. For Info, you've got to dig to get to this. It's like the "entrance tunnels" that some web wanks were advocating for websites for about fifteen minutes in 1997. Like I want to open four pages to get to your site Info puts shit in the way of what I'm looking for. - It splits a programs docs into multiple pages. In electronic format, single, large, documents which can be searched through readily (gee: that sounds like a manpage under 'less') is more useful than a set of smaller docs which can't be as readily scanned. - GNU project manpages frequently include a passage: This man page is not kept up to date except when volunteers want to maintain it. If you find a discrepancy between the man page and the software, please check the Info file, which is the authoritative documentation. [Taken from the gcc manpage] ...followed by dire warnings that the manpage may not be updated, etc., etc. At which point the pitiless reader turns to the info document...which in many cases is a copy of the same manpage (now presented in an unfamiliar document viewer). Houston, we've got a problem. > It *is* searchable from within info, it *has* several output formats > as it is LaTeX based. And the basic concept seems valid. The basic concept is valid. However, what seems to have happened in the world is that we got several rival document and hypertext languages in about the same five minute period of 1987. Tim Berners-Lee happened to win the race. Ironically, man pages translate quite well to HTML, and DocBook / LDP has largely filled the niche Info is more suited to: providing a more substantial, book-styled, document suitable for browsing rather than a quick reference. Info _was_ a really good idea at its time. Binding it to an emacs-style editor made a bit of sense. But things have changed, the computing audience has exploded beyond Richard's dreams (both in general, and for GNU/Linux specifically), and I'd venture to suggest that most people using GNU/Linux either don't know emacsen or don't use them as their principle editing environment. This is no longer a principally technical community, even on the "techincal" platform. > Okee, the interface is not to everybodies likening:), so improve. No. Divorce. Thou shalt render content and presntation asunder. It was a fatal sin in 1987 when Info was developed. It remains a sin. > Okee, the translation into other formats has its problems:), so > improve. No. Realize you've been one-upped and passed by. Man works for simple docs. Use man2html to present man pages via a web interface. Convert the Info content to one or the other. ***AND BACK FILL THE [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*() MAN PAGES YOU'VE DEPRECATED FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS***. Hmm...actually, dwww and info2www seems to answer a bit of this issue. I've never really played with dwww a whole mess, it actually seems to answer a number of the issues I've got. > But the search works for me I've got _no_ idea how to access this search function. The _only_ time I use the info browser is...when I'm using info. Whereas with man, I use the same less pager that I'm using to read any other text file. I hit manpages probably a few dozen times a day. I'd be (un)lucky to hit info
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
dman writes: > Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. What is emacs-centric about (N)ext, (P)revious, (U)p, (S)earch, and ENTER? I use both info and Emacs and don't find info Emacs-like at all when not run from inside Emacs. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Carel Fellinger wrote: | On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: | ... | > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the | > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable | > format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook | > capable of creating multiple output formats. | | I don't get this, just as I don't understand people bashing Stallman. | What is it in the program that is so horrible to ***DESPISE*** it? | So what is it that makes you (and others) react so vehemently? Personally it is the emacs-centric interface. I don't get it. (I did use emacs for a while, but I remember hardly any commands, vim was just easier for me to remember). Also, when I have tried info a few times, I see a highlighted word (link) that I want to follow, info tells me there is no link there. In short, I haven't been able to get it to work. 'man' works though. (and I hate those manpages that say "this manpage sucks cause I [the author] like info better") -D -- All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord. Proverbs 16:2
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:07:41PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: ... > I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the > basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable > format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook > capable of creating multiple output formats. I don't get this, just as I don't understand people bashing Stallman. What is it in the program that is so horrible to ***DESPISE*** it? It *is* searchable from within info, it *has* several output formats as it is LaTeX based. And the basic concept seems valid. Okee, the interface is not to everybodies likening:), so improve. Okee, the translation into other formats has its problems:), so improve. But the search works for me, and the idea that there is more to documenting a program then merely listing what options it has seems okee. And going through a tree like doc structure is quit common these days. So what is it that makes you (and others) react so vehemently? -- groetjes, carel
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 04:47:41PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote: > dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich wrote: > > | When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > | > > | But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > > Sometimes a manpage is good. Sometimes /usr/share/doc/. > > Sometimes install foo-doc package to get the documentation. > > And sometimes the package just has poor documentation. Some packages > just have the upstream documentation thrown in /usr/share/doc/, which > often conflicts with the actual Debian-specific configuration of the > package. It's frustrating, and there's not much you can do other than > ask around or read the source. Sometimes, true. In that case: # vi /etc/apt/sources.list ... activate deb-src lines for unstable # apt-get update # apt-get source packagename # mc Then you can read all the sources :) -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG-key: 1024D/D5DE453D + + My debian quick-reference, http://qref.sourceforge.net/quick/ +
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 15:07:41 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: >on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: >> Hi All ! >> >> When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > >I consider this acceptable only IITTNTRFMTFR [1] > Thanks, Karsten. When I query the list, it's because I couldn't find the answer in the manual nor in the 8 or 10 books on my desk. Worse, I found the answer when I didn't need it and can't find it when I do. We newbies often need a pointer to guide us. RTFM is not a pointer. RTPM, Read This Particular Manual, is. I do not address the case of the freeloader who has not made any effort in his own cause. > > >Peace. > > >Notes: > >1. If it tells the newbie the right fucking manual to fucking read. Now off to Mom'n them's for xmas eve dinner. My best wishes to everyone. gt Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Monday 24 December 2001 12:37, Martin Emrich wrote: > Hi All ! > > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man > foo nor the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. > Where is aditional documentation usually installed ? Or do you > know a good "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even > something in german.. would be nice) > > Thx > > Martin > > PS: Merry Christmas to all of you ! Try http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/general/help-system.en.html I need to update that but it will get you started. There is a package available called newbiedoc but I believe it's only available in testing. If you're running stable take a look at the dhelp and dwww packages which are available in stable. Or just do: apt-get install dhelp dwww After you install these packages you may wish to put your browser start page as (or create a bookmark): file:///usr/share/doc/HTML/index.html which is the index to dhelp. I had to do this because just typing dhelp at the command line didn't work. I believe there is a missing symlink or something. Just type dwww at the command line to get dwww. HTH, Jesse
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, yugami wrote: > www.linuxdoc.org > www.linuxnewbie.org Also http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/ (Debian-specific) Faheem.
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
on Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Hi All ! > > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... I consider this acceptable only IITTNTRFMTFR [1] > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional > documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good > "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. > would be nice) Assuming you know a command: $ command --help $ command -help $ man command Rarely: $ info command I ***DESPISE*** info. The pinfo alternative helps somewhat, but the basic concept still sucks. It should be scrapped for a searchable format based on HTML, XHTML, or preferably something like DocBook capable of creating multiple output formats. Local docs would be far more useful with a good search engine _specific to online help_. AFAIK, there's not a good solution to this for Debian, RH used to be somewhat better in this regard. If you don't know the command but have an idea of the problem area concept: $ apropos concept | less# often augmented with a grep filter $ locate concept Google. Surfraw rocks, and rocks harder with w3m: $ google Ditto: Google groups. I still forget this exists. HOWTOs. I have these installed locally: http://localhost/doc/HOWTO/en-html/ http://localhost/doc/HOWTO/en-html/mini Mailing lists and boards I hang at. Typically debian-user, svlug, and zIWETHEY: http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/show?boardid=1 Occasionally some chats and/or MUDs I hang at. Books: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/linux-books.html My mind. Both for knowledge and to extract clues from the information available. Peace. Notes: 1. If it tells the newbie the right fucking manual to fucking read. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpBLg19hSrKR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
Alec wrote: > > Try typing "info:/" into konqueror. This will give you something to read > until 2003. Otherwise, RTFM is sometimes accompanied by DAFS (Do a f* > search), which should be directing you to, say, > http://groups.google.com/groups?group=comp.os.linux.misc > with all google's search capabilities. What I tend to say is STFW - Search The Friggin' Web - via google, with the package/problem and OS (version) as keywords. Search web pages and groups (usenet). I also RTFM in various books (you know, those paper and ink things) that are published on the subject by reputable companies. My computer book expenditures are quite high, but that's me and my addiction ;) Linda -- Linda J Laubenheimer UNIX Geek, Sysadmin, Bibliophile and Iconoclast http://www.modusvarious.net/ - consultants available http://www.laubenheimer.net/ - personal demo site http://www.geocities.com/laubenheimer/ - web design gaffes (I wouldn't disgrace a real ISP with these) and rants about bad design.
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich wrote:
> | Hi All !
> |
> | When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM...
> |
> | But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor
> | the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional
> | documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good
> | "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would
> | be nice)
>
> Sometimes a manpage is good. Sometimes /usr/share/doc/.
> Sometimes install foo-doc package to get the documentation.
And sometimes the package just has poor documentation. Some packages
just have the upstream documentation thrown in /usr/share/doc/, which
often conflicts with the actual Debian-specific configuration of the
package. It's frustrating, and there's not much you can do other than
ask around or read the source.
> If you can't find the F{ine} Manual for a given piece of software or
> task then just ask. It usually helps to mention where you have
> already looked too.
--
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bignachos.com
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich wrote:
| Hi All !
|
| When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM...
|
| But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor
| the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional
| documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good
| "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would
| be nice)
Sometimes a manpage is good. Sometimes /usr/share/doc/.
Sometimes install foo-doc package to get the documentation. google
can help a lot. linuxdoc.org has lots of howtos.
If you can't find the F{ine} Manual for a given piece of software or
task then just ask. It usually helps to mention where you have
already looked too.
-D
--
"He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
--Jim Elliot
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Martin Emrich wrote: > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional > documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good > "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would > be nice) Always: http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp After apt-get install doc-linux-text : /usr/share/doc/HOWTO or http://www.linuxdoc.org And my plug :) http://qref.sourceforge.net/quick/ -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG-key: 1024D/D5DE453D + + My debian quick-reference, http://qref.sourceforge.net/quick/ +
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
www.linuxdoc.org www.linuxnewbie.org the documentation for various packages is on the website for those packages - Original Message - From: "Martin Emrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: Where do you RTFM ? > Hi All ! > > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional > documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good > "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would > be nice) > > Thx > > Martin > > PS: Merry Christmas to all of you ! > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
linuxdoc.org for whole documentation groups.deja.com for specific questions (this list posts to usenet as muc.lists.debian.user methinks) -lev On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Martin Emrich wrote: > Hi All ! > > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional > documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good > "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would > be nice) > > Thx > > Martin > > PS: Merry Christmas to all of you ! > > > -- personal site :: www.sonous.com rave site :: raves.sonous.com I'm a DJ! site :: djkgb.sonous.com "Progess is the direct result of dissatisfaction." -Mark Rudholm
Re: Where do you RTFM ?
On Monday 24 December 2001 12:37 pm, Martin Emrich wrote: > Hi All ! > > When newbies ask something, they are often asked to RTFM... > > But where do I find the Information ? Very often, neiter #man foo nor > the contents of the /usr/doc/foo are very helpful. Where is aditional > documentation usually installed ? Or do you know a good > "getting-documentation-howto" ? (maybe even something in german.. would > be nice) > > Thx > > Martin > > PS: Merry Christmas to all of you ! Try typing "info:/" into konqueror. This will give you something to read until 2003. Otherwise, RTFM is sometimes accompanied by DAFS (Do a f* search), which should be directing you to, say, http://groups.google.com/groups?group=comp.os.linux.misc with all google's search capabilities. HTH Alec
