Re: man v. info (was Re: mandb gets stuck!)
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> The problem is that this is often specifically what is *not* sought by
> those who are looking for manpages. What's wanted is a short, concise,
> but illustrative reference providing:
>
> - A functional description of the command.
>
> - A synopsis of all options and/or switches for the command.
>
> - EXAMPLES!!! Examples of (typical) usage are essential.
>
> - Additional sections: FILES, SEE ALSO, BUGS, and AUTHOR, typically.
>
> There is a utility to convert the man page equivalent portion of a
> typical info page to something resembling manpage format.
>
> Personally, I'd strongly recommend that the GNU project revisit the
> issue of info pages altogether. They're not popular, they don't
> adequately replace man pages, and there is a far more successful and
> ubiquitous hypertext model (HTML) in use now. Moreover, the standard
> info navigation keybindings (and even the simplified bindings offered by
> tools such as pinfo) are neither ubiquitous, corrospondent to other SW
> tools (emacs excepted), nor self evident.
I also agree. I think what bothers me most about info pages is that
they often read like books. They're usually arranged in a format
resembling chapters covering each topic in thorough detail. This is
fine if I want to read a book about Emacs, for example, but sucks if I
just want a quick reference for a command line switch or something.
It seems to me that GNU has nothing to lose and plenty to gain by
maintaining man pages. Of course man pages can't replace a true
documentation system like info, but a good man page is extremely
useful.
Nice post Karsten.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
Reply to: