Question of setting environment variables - Slackware

This is a discussion on Question of setting environment variables - Slackware ; Grant wrote: > Does vi open .gz files like vim can? ... Which vi? There are different implementations. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca Network and Systems analyst Concordia University Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 174

Thread: Question of setting environment variables

  1. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Grant wrote:

    > Does vi open .gz files like vim can? ...


    Which vi? There are different implementations.

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:22:21 +0000 (UTC), Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >
    >> Does vi open .gz files like vim can? ...

    >
    >Which vi? There are different implementations.


    On slackware? Is it elvis? In any case whatever slack-11 has for vi
    is quite clever, rather than throw a conniption with a .gz it:

    offset 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 0123456789abcdef
    00000000 <1f>8b 08 00 47 20 cb 48 00 03 c5 5a eb 73 da d8 ....G ËH..ÅZësÚØ
    00000010 92 ff ae bf a2 eb 4e 6d 5d 98 05 ac 37 a0 bb 99 .ÿ®¿¢ëNm]..¬7*».
    00000020 ba bc 9c 50 31 36 6b c8 64 76 b3 29 97 90 0e 46 º¼.P16kÈdv³)...F

    went into hex edit mode, now there's something I didn't know

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  3. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Michael Black:
    >
    >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>> Responding to Grant:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, my question has evolved into...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> * Why do we need a specialist reader/format for basic information?
    >>>>
    >>>> We don't -- man pages are text with markup, just like web pages, just
    >>>> a different breed of markup, that's all. Your argument is weak...
    >>>
    >>> So I CAN read them in my browser then, a tool that my fingers know
    >>> instinctively, without having to read up on the reader I needed to read
    >>> about something else? No... hang on... just tried it. It doesn't WORK
    >>> that way! Dayam! I need a special reader to read those pages!
    >>>

    >> I just looked at a man page with lynx, and it displays fine, the only
    >> difference being the lack of highlighting, which perhaps can be fixed
    >> with some changes to a config file.

    >
    > Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?
    >
    >
    >> I think, though, that you are arguing a false point. In the seven years
    >> I've been using Linux (which means seven years of using Slackware), I've
    >> never seen man as anything but invisible. It never gets in the way, it
    >> just displays the man page without any fuss. Indeed, I don't even think
    >> about how I'm invoking a command titled "man" and passing to it the
    >> specific man page I want to read, I think of it as looking at the man
    >> page for the thing I'm wanting to read.
    >>
    >> The man command is as invisible as cd or ls.
    >>

    >
    > I understand that. I'm not arguing that. I'm looking specifically a the
    > fact man pages are written to be primerily read by a special reader,
    > dedicated to just that purpose, and thats not a very "Linux" way to do
    > things compared to the extensible range of things other Linux apps can
    > typically be called upon to do.
    >

    But it's _not_ a special reader. The man command searches the
    directories it know about (via MANPATH) for a man page, then uses
    troff to format it and less to display it. It's not a big monolithic
    program as you seem to think. In fact, I'd say a web browser is more
    un-Linux like, as it _is_ a large, monolithic program which does HTTP,
    FTP, and displays images, among other things.


    > Sure, a little ingenuity can fix things, convert the man pages, extend
    > the capacity of a browser, but the basic setup is still the "old way".
    >
    > I'm asking why this old way is still "the standard" and suggesting its
    > obsolete, only still there because of a cycle of old hands used to using
    > it, and newbies feeling as if they need to get up to speed with it as if
    > it is some kind of magic Linux thing, which it isn't, and only figuring
    > out later than its function-specific legacy software, not something with
    > supa-dupa functions nothing else can do. The fact its so ingrained and
    > "traditional" in most/all distros is probably why its still there.
    >

    Because I can type "man bash" then search for what I'm interested in.
    With HTML it'd be similiar to info, separate topics in separate
    sections (usually different files), so I need to first find the
    appropriate section, then search for my topic. I'll take man over that
    any day.

    Jerry

  4. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Mike wrote:
    >
    > Yeah, one can learn the intricacies of the man reader, but thats what I'm
    > talking about. Its a form of "app-creep". Every little thing needing it's
    > own app, with it's own set of function keys, mindset. logics, flags, etc.
    > etc. etc.


    I use "less" for reading plain text, too. It's not only for manpages.

    >
    > While the idea of a single killer-app might not appear to some/many, IMO
    > the man reader thing is heading in the other direction, and in some ways
    > echoes the M$ way of imposing more complications than are necessary on
    > the end user, when there are simpler and more direct ways of delivering
    > that content.


    Let's see "man bash" as opposed to what? Man searches MANPATH, are you
    going to implement that in the browser? Mostly I know which man page I
    want, I just need to look up an option, or be sure I've remembered it
    correctly. I _don't_ want to, or need to wade through a TOC to find
    the page I'm looking for.

    Again, man is not a single program, it's a pipeline. It could actually
    be implemented as a shell script if someone wanted to code it. The
    complicated part is finding the desired manpage, after that it's a
    simple pipeline.

    Jerry
    >
    >
    >>> Be honest. If the man page format did not already exist, would anybody
    >>> actually invent it today?

    >> That's a good question, which probably none of us can answer
    >> definitively. But people who aren't happy with the limitations of HTML
    >> browsers might invent something else.

    >
    > Ok. Let me take a shot at it then. No. Nobody would write the man page
    > reader as somebody else would have said "Hey! Lets use HTML if we need
    > markup!" and somebody else would have said "Hey! Lets extend XYZ browser
    > to give us bookmarking functions and other cool stuff!" and so on...


    It pre-dates HTML by over a decade. Heck, I was using a predecessor
    called runoff back in the late 60's.

    >
    > I propose that the ONLY real reason anybody uses the man page reader
    > stuff is because its already there, and "we've always done it this way",
    > plus, the subtle but "in there" defensive responses I'm seeing are
    > typical of any suggestion of change being made to people who pride
    > themselves in their skill with something.


    No, because it's simple to use and it just works. It's resistance to
    overly complex solutions to simple problems.

    Jerry

  5. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-29, Jerry Peters wrote:
    > But it's _not_ a special reader. The man command searches the
    > directories it know about (via MANPATH) for a man page, then uses
    > troff to format it and less to display it. It's not a big monolithic
    > program as you seem to think. In fact, I'd say a web browser is more
    > un-Linux like, as it _is_ a large, monolithic program which does HTTP,
    > FTP, and displays images, among other things.
    >


    Good point...I think the OP is missing that point and it's an important
    point. In addition, the OP can install pinfo for man page use as well as
    info page use and get the same keystroke commands available for lynx as well
    as clickable links to other manpages.

    The OP is turning a simple information solution into a complex issue.

    ken

  6. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >
    > Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?


    man man2html

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  7. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-29 at 19:03 ADT, Keith Keller wrote:
    > On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >> Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?

    >
    > man man2html


    Of course, now we are back at the beginning "problem", since some people
    have a hard time using man :-)

    Jim

  8. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-30, Jim Diamond wrote:
    > On 2008-09-29 at 19:03 ADT, Keith Keller wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?

    >>
    >> man man2html

    >
    > Of course, now we are back at the beginning "problem", since some people
    > have a hard time using man :-)
    >
    > Jim


    Well, I'm guessing here, but the solution might be to convert the man page
    for man2html to html so that it can be viewed in a browser -- for the
    benefit of some.

    ken

  9. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Jim Diamond wrote:
    > On 2008-09-29 at 19:03 ADT, Keith Keller wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?

    >>
    >> man man2html

    >
    > Of course, now we are back at the beginning "problem", since some people
    > have a hard time using man :-)
    >
    > Jim


    A guy asks a harmless question, and the bozos on this group go on about it
    for days.

    Will he ever be back? I doubt it very much.

    No wonder Slackware remains a minor distro. It's most obvious advocates are
    a bunch of arrogant assholes clearly in need of lives.

    Sid



  10. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On 2008-09-29 at 08:12 ADT, Mike wrote:
    > Responding to Jim Diamond:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-28 at 11:33 ADT, Mike wrote:


    >>> Yeah, I KNOW things can be converted/scripted/altered, but thats not
    >>> the point of my question.
    >>>
    >>> Why do we need a special reader for specially formatted documentation
    >>> at all?

    >>
    >> Maybe because it does a better job than using a web (oops, HTML)
    >> browser?
    >>
    >> Can your HTML browser do regular expression searches?
    >>
    >> Can you set "bookmarks" at specific lines with your HTML browser so that
    >> you can easily flip back and forth in the man page you are reading?
    >>
    >> Can you imagine that not everyone wants to use some piece of bloatware
    >> every time they want to do something simple?

    >
    > Lynx is hardly bloatware. Lets get rid of the idea that Firefox is the
    > only browser on the planet shall we?

    So, do you think lynx is much more obvious and straightforward than
    man? Does it not have its own arcane behavior? I assume most people
    (at this point) know how to use something like firefox, because of all
    the web sites which use graphics/images/movies/..., but I'm betting a
    small percentage of people use text-only browsers like lynx.


    > As for the functions you describe here, surely developing a browser to
    > include these functions makes more sense than investing in a single-
    > purpose reader application? (More on this further down.)

    Who is investing what? It has been around since the 1970's?

    In fact, to put those functions in a browser would require an
    investment in time by someone now (as far as I know).


    >>> This is a legacy thing, and I suppose I'm arguing that its not only
    >>> obsolete, but arguably time consuming and distracting for today's Linux
    >>> user base.

    >> Your argument so far is very weak, please share some good points with
    >> me, I'm always keen to know about better ways to do things.

    > Sarcasm isn't helping here, and indicates a weak stance.
    > Lets tip-toe away from the potential for a flaming as thats not what
    > I'm seeking here.

    There is no sarcasm or flaming there. Your argument as stated (so
    far) is weak. And I am always interested in better/easier ways to do
    things; if you are able to point out a better way of doing things, I
    am genuinely interested.

    So far all of your writing indicates a lack of understanding of what
    the man program does for you. Maybe you do understand it, but your
    messages don't suggest that to me.


    >>> "We've always done it this way" doesn't cut the mustard when you've
    >>> jobs waiting and need to fix something before something else happens as
    >>> a result.

    >> Does this have something to do with reading man pages?

    > Sarcasm again. Lets leave that.

    Again, no sarcasm.

    >>> Or do we assume all Linux users go through a Linux Training Camp before
    >>> being allowed near a live terminal? "If you have a problem you WILL
    >>> read your man pages. IF you don't know all the tricks to using your man
    >>> page reader you WILL have another problem. IF you have another problem
    >>> you WILL NOT solve your first problem UNTIL you have learned to fly
    >>> your man page reader upside down while making a cup of tea and
    >>> compiling the latest X.org server in French! DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR
    >>> MAGGOTS?" "SIR! YES SIR!"

    >> Apparently you find your MANPAGER program (less, in my case) much more
    >> difficult to use than most people. But really, it isn't that hard to
    >> use it in a minimalist way. And if/when you come to the realization
    >> that you want something that is more than minimalist, you will find that
    >> there are other features to facilitate your man page reading.

    > See above comments on investing in developing browser capacity rather
    > than a single-purpose application.


    > Yeah, one can learn the intricacies of the man reader, but thats
    > what I'm talking about. Its a form of "app-creep". Every little
    > thing needing it's own app, with it's own set of function keys,
    > mindset. logics, flags, etc. etc. etc.

    As other people have pointed out to you, the interface one normally
    sees to reading man pages is "less", which is a program many people
    use for viewing all sorts of text data, not just man pages.

    > While the idea of a single killer-app might not appear to some/many, IMO
    > the man reader thing is heading in the other direction,

    It's not heading anywhere, if by "heading" you mean how its
    development is proceeding. It's a mature piece of software.

    > and in some ways echoes the M$ way of imposing more complications
    > than are necessary on the end user, when there are simpler and more
    > direct ways of delivering that content.

    If you could articulate how you think using any existing HTML browser
    is more convenient for viewing man pages than man is, I'd be very
    interested.

    >>> Be honest. If the man page format did not already exist, would anybody
    >>> actually invent it today?

    >> That's a good question, which probably none of us can answer
    >> definitively. But people who aren't happy with the limitations of HTML
    >> browsers might invent something else.

    > Ok. Let me take a shot at it then. No. Nobody would write the man
    > page reader as somebody else would have said "Hey! Lets use HTML if
    > we need markup!" and somebody else would have said "Hey! Lets extend
    > XYZ browser to give us bookmarking functions and other cool stuff!"
    > and so on...

    Rubbish. The items I mentioned above (regexp search, easy creating
    and access of "bookmarks" inside one document/web page) would be
    useful for things other than man pages, and yet (AFAIK) they aren't
    there.

    > I propose that the ONLY real reason anybody uses the man page reader
    > stuff is because its already there, and "we've always done it this way",
    > plus, the subtle but "in there" defensive responses I'm seeing are
    > typical of any suggestion of change being made to people who pride
    > themselves in their skill with something.

    yes, there are some people who would rather use something they know
    than change to using something new, but there is no point in changing
    from a better system to a worse system, just for the sake of change.
    But if/when someone comes up with a system which is better, people
    will adopt it.

    > I'm suggesting that the time to rethink things regarding the man page
    > reader thing is not only here, but has been for some time.

    Well, if you want it re-thought, I suppose you have two possibilities:
    (1) rethink it thoroughly yourself and propose a solution, or
    (2) convince someone else that it is worth it for them to rethink it
    and propose a solution.

    Judging by the other posts in this thread, I don't think you've said
    anything to convince anyone else here. But who knows, maybe you will
    in your next message.

    Cheers.
    Jim

  11. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:15:51 -0700, Sidney Lambe wrote:

    > A guy asks a harmless question, and the bozos on this group go on about
    > it for days.
    >
    > Will he ever be back? I doubt it very much.


    We can hope not, anyway. How about you disappear too?

    > No wonder Slackware remains a minor distro. It's most obvious advocates
    > are a bunch of arrogant assholes clearly in need of lives.


    Now you're sounding like ANC, "Sidney".

    > Sid


    You're name is "Alan Connor", or "Tom Newton", you pathetic ****ing
    whacko. Get along and find your medication before you're committed again.


    --
    "Sidney Lambe" ("Tom Newton") - the latest nymshift of "Alan Connor".
    Read more about the netkook Alan Connor here:
    http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
    Email him: calhobbit@gmail.com or simpleman.s43@gmail.com

  12. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:49:37 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    >> No wonder Slackware remains a minor distro. It's most obvious advocates
    >> are a bunch of arrogant assholes clearly in need of lives.

    >
    > Now you're sounding like ANC, "Sidney".


    And I seem to have read all that stuff about Slackware already:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Slackware

  13. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Jerry Peters:

    [...]
    >
    >> While the idea of a single killer-app might not appear to some/many,
    >> IMO the man reader thing is heading in the other direction, and in some
    >> ways echoes the M$ way of imposing more complications than are
    >> necessary on the end user, when there are simpler and more direct ways
    >> of delivering that content.

    >
    > Let's see "man bash" as opposed to what? Man searches MANPATH, are you
    > going to implement that in the browser? Mostly I know which man page I
    > want, I just need to look up an option, or be sure I've remembered it
    > correctly. I _don't_ want to, or need to wade through a TOC to find the
    > page I'm looking for.
    >
    > Again, man is not a single program, it's a pipeline. It could actually
    > be implemented as a shell script if someone wanted to code it. The
    > complicated part is finding the desired manpage, after that it's a
    > simple pipeline.
    >



    From where I'm sitting, you just outlined something I've been talking
    about. Sure, issuing "man something" gets you documentation, but not in
    any way that couldn't be done in several other ways. Sure, the obscure
    and specialist formating can be piped into several other options. Sure,
    its all learnable, and sure, its a process thats been developed and
    smoothed over the years.

    But its still specific formating that requires a specific process.

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  14. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Jim Diamond:

    [...]
    >>>
    >>> Can you imagine that not everyone wants to use some piece of bloatware
    >>> every time they want to do something simple?

    >>
    >> Lynx is hardly bloatware. Lets get rid of the idea that Firefox is the
    >> only browser on the planet shall we?

    > So, do you think lynx is much more obvious and straightforward than man?


    Not in the slightest. I was simply offering a preliminary example that
    could be seen as a developable option, rather than heading off down the
    road of specific single-purpose applications/processes.

    I'm not waving a flag here shouting "Do things my way!", I'm simply
    looking at something I tripped over and found to be one of those things
    one rarely questions, and appears to be the product of having rarely been
    questioned. If somebody was to start inventing an operating system right
    about now, the way man pages are stored and delivered wouldn't be re-
    invented. Maybe some of the functions provided by the current setup
    would, but not the exclusive restricted and, I have to say it coz thats
    how I see it, dead-end formatting.


    [...]
    >
    >> Yeah, one can learn the intricacies of the man reader, but thats what
    >> I'm talking about. Its a form of "app-creep". Every little thing
    >> needing it's own app, with it's own set of function keys, mindset.
    >> logics, flags, etc. etc. etc.

    > As other people have pointed out to you, the interface one normally sees
    > to reading man pages is "less", which is a program many people use for
    > viewing all sorts of text data, not just man pages.
    >
    >> While the idea of a single killer-app might not appear to some/many,
    >> IMO the man reader thing is heading in the other direction,

    > It's not heading anywhere, if by "heading" you mean how its development
    > is proceeding. It's a mature piece of software.


    Its a /legacy/ piece of software. If it's not "heading", as in "being
    developed/maintained" then its also potentially obsolete. (Just a thought
    there, nothing more.

    Mature, yes, in common use, yes, even prefered by those who are familiar
    with it, but to suggest that its "maturity" is an indication of it's god-
    like design (OTT? , or that maturity itself is the indicator of "how
    things should be done" is surely stretching things a tad.

    If it were that clever and efficient, many other things would work just
    like it, but don't. Its unique. It has it's own logics and
    idiosyncracies, and adds to a list of unique interfaces the Linux user
    needs to become familiar with, without offering anything particularly
    better than other multi-purpose ways of doing the same jobs.

    IOW, its clutter. Friendly, familiar, maybe even prefered by those who
    have spent the time getting to know it, but its a cul-de-sac. It does
    nothing else, and other things can do what it does. Maybe not as well,
    ATM, but thats surely because there has always been the fallback that it
    is easier to learn the (old) man reader way than write a new function
    into a file manager or browser.


    [...]
    >
    >> I'm suggesting that the time to rethink things regarding the man page
    >> reader thing is not only here, but has been for some time.

    > Well, if you want it re-thought, I suppose you have two possibilities:
    > (1) rethink it thoroughly yourself and propose a solution, or (2)
    > convince someone else that it is worth it for them to rethink it
    > and propose a solution.


    Already considered. If I had the time and dexterity (not to mention the
    eyesight) I might have considered giving it a go, just for the learning
    experience if nothing else, but all I can do these days is raise the
    question and hope somebody either points out what I've missed, or picks
    up on the idea. As man2html and man2text already exist, I guess I'm not
    alone in at least some of my experience/opinion here.


    > Judging by the other posts in this thread, I don't think you've said
    > anything to convince anyone else here. But who knows, maybe you will in
    > your next message.


    I'm not trying to "convince" anybody of anything. Nor am I seeking to
    make anybody who finds thing to be different to how I'm seeing them feel
    less. All I'm trying to do is examine something I think has become
    entrenched in a "We've always done things this way" rut. So far, I've
    seen quite a bit of the kind of response this situation would generate.
    What I would like is to look at the options, and instead of saying
    "T'aint gonna happen buddy!" or "If ya think yer so clever, do it and
    we'll letcha know!", and maybe find a few "How else could this be done?"
    ideas.


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  15. Re: Question of getting system/application information.

    Responding vaguely to Loki Harfagr:

    > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:49:58 -0500, Dan C sprout:
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:25:22 +0000, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm asking why this old way is still "the standard" and suggesting its
    >>> obsolete, only still there because of a cycle of old hands used to
    >>> using it, and newbies feeling as if they need to get up to speed with
    >>> it as if

    >>
    >> I already answered this in another post, but here it is again: Not all
    >> *nix systems have a web browser available for viewing man pages, n00b.

    >
    > and even in the case there's one it's not the whole pie, half the time I
    > see html pages is under vi, I also tried vi on man pages and the result
    > was quite disapointing ;D)
    >
    > of course that's with a real vi, not the vim-basquiatizer... duck!


    (Caught this coz you replied to it.)

    Is that blusting idiot Dan C still trying to haunt people who plonked him
    years ago? Is that tenacity, or insanity?

    Don't bother Dan. You ain't getting out any time soon.

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  16. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to No_One:

    > On 2008-09-29, Jerry Peters wrote:
    >> But it's _not_ a special reader. The man command searches the
    >> directories it know about (via MANPATH) for a man page, then uses troff
    >> to format it and less to display it. It's not a big monolithic program
    >> as you seem to think. In fact, I'd say a web browser is more un-Linux
    >> like, as it _is_ a large, monolithic program which does HTTP, FTP, and
    >> displays images, among other things.
    >>
    >>

    > Good point...I think the OP is missing that point and it's an important
    > point. In addition, the OP can install pinfo for man page use as well
    > as info page use and get the same keystroke commands available for lynx
    > as well as clickable links to other manpages.
    >
    > The OP is turning a simple information solution into a complex issue.
    >


    That'd be me, and yes, I run the risk of doing just that.


    The problem I'm having with a number of replies, however, is that my
    suggestion that other ways of doing this are not only possible, but
    practical, are seemingly refuted by comparisons with how things are right
    now. For example, I suggest using Lynx, and instead of actually examining
    this idea and suggesting development options, or an alternative, the
    typical response is "Can't do it the same, got used to this way now,
    forget it."

    Sure there are task specific functions the man reader process can do
    better than a browser that was never designed or developed in that
    direction, but it /could/ be, and /wasn't/.


    So, its maybe not so much me turning things into a complex issue, but
    that the question itself involves complexity that is already there, is
    traditionally avoided as its easier to just learn to use the man reader
    process, and this needs to be waded through if one is to examine the
    question I'm looking at.

    IOW, the existence of the traditional man reader process has acted as a
    diversion to development of a potentially better way of integrating
    system and other documentation into other multi-purpose/function
    applications.



    P.S. OP = Mike. Hi there!

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  17. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to No_One:

    > On 2008-09-30, Jim Diamond wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-29 at 19:03 ADT, Keith Keller
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?
    >>>
    >>> man man2html

    >>
    >> Of course, now we are back at the beginning "problem", since some
    >> people have a hard time using man :-)
    >>
    >> Jim

    >
    > Well, I'm guessing here, but the solution might be to convert the man
    > page for man2html to html so that it can be viewed in a browser -- for
    > the benefit of some.
    >
    > ken



    Yoohoo! Over here! The point is way over here guys!

    Damn! Too far away. They'll never hear me at this distance.

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  18. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to Keith Keller:

    > On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>
    >> Or, if the man pages themselves were html/html compatible... ?

    >
    > man man2html
    >
    > --keith



    Assuming the sarcasm wasn't intended here, you missed the point.


    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  19. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    Responding to No_One:

    > On 2008-09-29, Mike wrote:
    >>>> "We've always done it this way" doesn't cut the mustard when you've
    >>>> jobs waiting and need to fix something before something else happens
    >>>> as a result.
    >>>
    >>> The man reader prevents you from completing jobs....is that your point
    >>> here?
    >>>
    >>> I love to "hear" the explanation for this piece of rubbish.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ken

    >>
    >>
    >> You appear to be looking for a flame here, and I'm not.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > You can't answer the question so you avoid it. The question is valid,
    > how does the man reader prevent you from completing jobs as claimed in
    > your post.
    >
    >


    It doesn't, and I never said that or even aluded to that.

    But, to add a thought, Windows doesn't prevent me from doing jobs either.
    I just prefer to use what I consider better software to do those jobs.

    Now can we please get off this spluttering flame thats trying to flare up?

    --
    *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
    *===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
    *===( http://www.zenwalk.org/

  20. Re: Question of getting system/application information

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:09:45 +0000, Mike wrote:

    > I'm not trying to "convince" anybody of anything. Nor am I seeking to
    > make anybody who finds thing to be different to how I'm seeing them feel
    > less.


    Then shut the **** up and go away, troll-boy.

    > All I'm trying to do is examine something I think has become entrenched
    > in a "We've always done things this way" rut.


    Then go do your examining in the privacy of your own basement.

    > So far, I've seen quite a bit of the kind of response this situation
    > would generate. What I would like is to look at the options, and instead
    > of saying "T'aint gonna happen buddy!" or "If ya think yer so clever, do
    > it and we'll letcha know!", and maybe find a few "How else could this be
    > done?" ideas.


    Is that not the expected result of a troll post? In that regard, you have
    certainly been successful.

    Now, bugger off on out of here, dimwit, and leave the Slackware to those
    who know what they're doing.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast