source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 15, 2014 16:18 UTC (Mon) by mbunkus (subscriber, #87248)
In reply to: source format vs info/html by fb
Parent article: Emacs and changing documentation formats

I do agree that info has failed somehow, but:

1. »man info« pretty much tells you to type »h« inside info itself in order to get help on key bindings. Citing »man info«:

> For a summary of key bindings, type h within Info.

2. When you run info (the program) then the bottom line will read »Welcome to Info version 5.2. Type h for help, m for menu item.«.

Hitting that aforementioned »h« inside h will get you exactly the information you need.

So I do dispute the claim that how to use info is not documented enough.

source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 18, 2014 20:37 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Unfortunately, it is. As someone who has - on several occasions - done pretty much as you suggest, I still hate the damn thing with a vengeance because I just cannot get to grips with it!!!

Cheers,
Wol

source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 18, 2014 22:29 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Quite the opposite -- it's OVER documented. Using info requires reading so much documentation that I just can't be bothered. Why doesn't it behave like other Unix utilities? (Emacs doesn't count)

source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 19, 2014 10:53 UTC (Fri) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link] (2 responses)

@mbunkus sorry, but the version of the info manual present in my computer does not contain that string.

It seems OSX ships a version of info which is from Dec 2004 (Info version 4.8). (at work I pretty much sit the whole day inside OSX).

So while the documentation may have been fixed recently to address many usability issues. This old man page shows (as far as I am concerned) why so many people that made an honest attempt to use info 'back in day' did not succeed and pretty much learned ways to avoid using it.

source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 19, 2014 14:10 UTC (Fri) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link] (1 responses)

> It seems OSX ships a version of info which is from Dec 2004

This could be an instance of "Steve's wrath": AFAIK Apple hates GPLV3 and prefers treating its customers to outdated Gnu software before even coming close to this license (Bash's another typical case: watch Apple's strange dance in the shellshock drama).

Whether that's in your (as Apple's customer) interest is quite another thing...

source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 19, 2014 14:36 UTC (Fri) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link]

I'm well aware that Apple is not updating anything re-released as GPLv3. No, I don't think this is in my interest as an Apple _user_ (the Apple customer in question is my employer).

[...]

I am seriously /not/ an Apple fan. But from my experience working for large IT companies, I don't think it has much to do with a former CEO's wrath or not. My **guess** is that something like this took place:

1. when the GPLv3 came out, folks in charge of updating utilities knew they had to get Legal to approve the new license. They asked Legal. Legal said "nope".

2. the (GPLv3 inclusion) request won't ever get reevaluated without pressure coming from product managers, and I suppose Apple product managers really do not have that anywhere in their priority list.

[...]

Bash's shell-shock back and forth of fix-attempts was, in my understanding, embarrassing for everyone.