source format vs info/html

Posted Dec 19, 2014 10:53 UTC (Fri) by fb (guest, #53265)
In reply to: source format vs info/html by mbunkus
Parent article: Emacs and changing documentation formats

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This could be an instance of "Steve's wrath": AFAIK Apple hates GPLV3 and prefers treating its customers to outdated Gnu software before even coming close to this license (Bash's another typical case: watch Apple's strange dance in the shellshock drama).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