| 1 |
Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> writes: |
| 5 |
>> > and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to read |
| 6 |
>> > info? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> You appear to be taking a potshot, not really adding to the |
| 9 |
>> discussion. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I know you are not incapable of installing emacs and we both know you |
| 12 |
>> can read info without it quite well. So I'm left wondering why you |
| 13 |
>> add this combative post. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> easy - what if you need info to get networking working - and without |
| 16 |
> networking you can not download emacs? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Once more: |
| 19 |
users can read info with the stand alone info reader just fine. |
| 20 |
(No need to install anything) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Users who want a more advanced way to read info may consider using |
| 23 |
emacs. It is worth installing for many other reasons as well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Similar to using `less' for man pages instead of the default `more'. |
| 26 |
At least on many OS's |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Emacs is not for when you don't yet have a network. Then its not an |
| 29 |
option. Why do you continue to repeat that? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> man is easy to read. Always. Info? Not. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I respect your experience, talent and especially many contributions to |
| 34 |
this list. But, you present your opinions as if they are acts of |
| 35 |
nature. Its good to remember its only your opinion not a law of |
| 36 |
physics or some other indisputable fact. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Further more its actually wrong too. The bash manual is not easier to |
| 39 |
read in `man' as opposed to `info'. Unless you don't know how to use |
| 40 |
info. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
If you do then an indexed document with a table of contents, is going |
| 43 |
to be `easier', in the sense that you will be able to navigate it |
| 44 |
better and pull in relevant comments on related matters easily. |
| 45 |
Therefore you will learn more, quicker. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If all you need is a quick search for something minor you've forgotten |
| 48 |
then man will be the way to go. You will already have a good idea |
| 49 |
what to search for. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
>> People are discussing HTML, which of course needs some reader... I'm |
| 52 |
>> pointing out a more advanced way to use info that may appeal to some. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> less can do html just fine. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
None the less, a second application is required. If I recall |
| 57 |
correctly less is not part of a stage[23] install and therefore must |
| 58 |
be installed. But even if I'm wrong, and it is, and you don't have to |
| 59 |
install something, we aren't necessarily talking here about the barest |
| 60 |
bone case. You keep raising that but I've seen no one argue against |
| 61 |
man in that event. At least not me. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Because man is available without a network does not mean it is always |
| 64 |
better or that one should use it exclusively with or without a |
| 65 |
network. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
In a `no network' situation: |
| 68 |
Once I've tried `man' and still have trouble, I use the stand alone info |
| 69 |
reader.. In other words, man is my first choice. I agree that for |
| 70 |
many things man can't be beat, but for something like the bash |
| 71 |
documentation info is vastly superior. And if you have the |
| 72 |
opportunity to use emacs to read the info documents.. that's all the |
| 73 |
better. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
[...] |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
> I used xemacs in the past - which is even better. But today kate and nano |
| 78 |
> replaced it for me. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
Once again your opinion is presented as hard fact. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
My opinion is that Xemacs is NOT better and in fact is inferior in |
| 83 |
many ways, but that is for another thread... and probably not worth |
| 84 |
the effort anyway since that argument will take on religious overtones |
| 85 |
very quickly. |
Archives