On 10/24/05, Keith MARSHALL wrote: > [Concerning the availability of man vs. info pages] > > D. E. Evans wrote: > > I agree. However, as a GNU program, GNU users are going to > > automatically look at info, not man... > > Says who? I'm a GNU/Linux user, and I will go for the man page > first, every time. > > As others have said, it is intensely irritating to say `man foo', > only to be referred to an info document. Even more irritating to > be referred to an info document for more information, only to find > there a verbatim copy of what I've just read in the man page, with > nothing added, or to say `info bar', to be told "no info on bar", > and then be presented with a manpage, but having to use info's > interface to peruse it. >
I agree with Keith. On the one hand I find that texinfo is an excellent means to write technical documentation with TeX (it is much better than LaTeX in that respect, but I take mm instead anyday), but as a replacement to man pages failed and it did it 15 years ago already. What I find puzzling is that once upon a time there was a texi2man package and it even showed up in the texinfo distribution. I wonder what happened to that. Has anyone noticed that most man pages in a GNU/Linux system have been written by members of the Debian Documentation Team? Even those of official GNU software? I bow to them. -- Alejandro López-Valencia _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
