[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Working for Debian is not just about packages

At around Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:19:10 +1000,
 Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> may have mentioned:

> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 11:23:37AM +0900, sen_ml@eccosys.com wrote:


cas> > > abysmal user interface, clumsy to use, it never does what you
cas> > > expect, and the search facility is next to useless.
> >
> > would you care to elaborate on these points in more detail? what do
> > you mean by 'absymal', 'clumsy', 'never does what you expect', and
> > 'search facility is next to useless'?
cas> use it for 5 minutes, and all of the above will be self-evident.

i use it occasionally (and info-mode in emacs frequently) and i don't
share your opinion.

if you are going to claim these things:

  -abysmal user interface
  -clumsy to use
  -never does what you expect
  -search facility is next to useless

i think you should be willing to say specifically how.

> (if you've already become familiar with info then try running it
> while expecting it to behave similarly to almost every other text
> viewer/browser type program - e.g. lynx and less)

this sounds similar to:

  try using vi while expecting emacs-like bindings or behavior


  try using emacs while expecting vi-like bindings or behavior

is that what you meant?

> > are there specific ways in which it could be improved that you can
> > suggest?
> ditch it and use pinfo instead.

since you did not give a specific method of improving the info program,
i presume you mean that you think there are no ways in which it could be

> really.  /usr/bin/info is a waste of time.  

i do not share your opinion on this matter.  (this is not to say that
i don't think pinfo is nice -- now that i've been introduced to pinfo,
i like it as well).

but it is clear that you do not like the info program, and do not
appear to have any interest in having it improved, so i am probably
wasting my breath :-)

let's not discuss this any more, as it is does not appear to be a
constructive discussion.

Reply to: