Dave Howorth wrote: <SNIP>
I'm with Linda. Keep man pages as they were! Follow the agreed, public standards. Don't break backwards compatibility. The reason we use linux and it is successful is because it is based on open standards. If you want non-conforming behaviour, then add switches to allow it - though I'd suggest it just complicates the code. Making an application or web interface that encapsulates them and provides the functionality is a better direction, IMHO.
I am one of those Unix dinosaurs, and as such, based on others' comments, I should hate the change in default behavior. But I do not...I find the new behavior to be better, in that it shows me, and allows me to conveniently access, any and all sections. The only (or at least primary) reason for maintaining backwards compatible behavior, is to avoid breaking scripts, etc. But who uses man commands in scripts? They are designed to run interactively, with a user on the other end. If you are a noob, you will still get the old result if you just let it time out. Or if two seconds +/- annoys you, you can alias man to a man command with a switch (-S list-of-sections-to-return). Or if you are too noob to know how to do that, you probably don't even know what the old behavior was. info was an attempt at enhancing documentation. And it has at best been a mixed success. I only use it when I don't find what I want in the man pages, or when the man pages tell me that the good stuff is in info. I go first to man, because that is where I am most likely to find at least a definition of my options, and a brief explanation of issues and incompatibilities. Let's not dumb down Linux just for backward compatibility, when in reality, such compatibility affects nothing except a (removable) brief pause to display your other section options. Now I'll sit back and see who tries to come up with a convoluted example of a meaningful script that gets broken by the default behavior being changed. Dan PS vi rules, if you take the time to learn how to use it. (Taking a bit of time to learn an editor beats taking a lot of time to use an editor, anytime.) And the time to do so is a lot less than the time to learn the Wordstar-like multi-key sequences of Emacs. Plus, if you have to get on many different machines, many of which you don't control, depending on Emacs leaves you on the dock when the ship sails, at least part of the time. I have yet to find a Unix, POSIX-like, Linux distro, or other non-M$ system that didn't have a fully functioning vi on it, (unless you count the times the machine is down hard. ) And if you are trying to recover a machine that is down hard with Emacs, good luck...hope you have a bootable USB key with you and the box has a bootable USB port. ;-) "Real hackers know how to use vi, even if they prefer Emacs. But if you really know vi, what do you need Emacs for?" ;-) Using Emacs is like carrying around a top of the line Swiss Army knife AND a fully-loaded multi-took knife in your pocket at all times, just so you can cut something open if you need to. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org