Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #174795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 117 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-16 16:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 19:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 13:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 15:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 15:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-11-17 18:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-16 16:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-17 16:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2016-11-17 19:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:30 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-17 22:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-17 23:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:20 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-18 10:40 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-18 11:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" emetib <chadbrabec@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 20:30 +0100
Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2016-12-29 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 19:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 19:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-12-30 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 09:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 14:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nemeth Gyorgy <friczy@freemail.hu> - 2016-12-31 10:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-12-31 12:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-01-02 02:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 02:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 16:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 17:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-01-02 19:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 18:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 15:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 16:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 17:20 +0100
[OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-01-01 23:50 +0100
Re: [OT] on education [was]: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 01:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-12 17:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 13:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 14:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <xen@dds.nl> - 2017-01-01 20:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2017-01-02 20:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") cbannister@slingshot.co.nz - 2017-03-11 10:00 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-03-11 12:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 14:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-03-11 19:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-03-13 13:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 04:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-31 08:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 12:40 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-12-30 13:30 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 15:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 20:50 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 00:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:10 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 01:50 +0100
[OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-12-31 03:20 +0100
Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 10:20 +0100
Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2017-03-11 22:50 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:10 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal" Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 13:30 +0100
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUZBL-7Y3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176237 |
On Monday 02 January 2017 01:00:56 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 January 2017 14:46:30 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about
> > > anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the
> > > man page.
> >
> > Compare
> > man ls
> > and
> > info ls
> >
> > The chapter of ls in coreutils.info is much longer than the man page.
> > It gives some background information for the options which are grouped
> > by * Which files are listed::
> > * What information is listed::
> > * Sorting the output::
> > * Details about version sort::
> > * General output formatting::
> > * Formatting file timestamps::
> > * Formatting the file names::
>
> I believe that is all in my man page on ls, its quite lengthy here on
> this wheezy system. If not, then its the exception that proves the rule.
>
> > That's central GNU homeland, of course. The situation in other regions
> > of GNU/Linux varies heavily.
> >
> >
> > Have a nice day :)
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
Man ls was written by Richard Stallman, which ought to mean something.
It does offer:
<quote>Full documentation at: <http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ls>
or available locally via: info '(coreutils) ls invocation'</quote>
which surely ought to be enough for anyone. But many commands have a less
ideal offering.
Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sVcfD-8dX-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176237 |
On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 20:00:56 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 01 January 2017 14:46:30 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I cannot recall ever seeing a more complete information about
> > > anything I ever looked up, telling me something that wasn't in the
> > > man page.
> >
> > Compare
> > man ls
> > and
> > info ls
> >
> > The chapter of ls in coreutils.info is much longer than the man page.
> > It gives some background information for the options which are grouped
> > by * Which files are listed::
> > * What information is listed::
> > * Sorting the output::
> > * Details about version sort::
> > * General output formatting::
> > * Formatting file timestamps::
> > * Formatting the file names::
>
> I believe that is all in my man page on ls, its quite lengthy here on
> this wheezy system. If not, then its the exception that proves the rule.
Have you actually looked?
$ man ls | wc -l
223
$ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes ls | wc -l
853
$
Where in man ls does this information come, just to pick on one small
aspect that sometimes pops up on debian-user:
Following the file mode bits is a single character that specifies
whether an alternate access method such as an access control list
applies to the file. When the character following the file mode
bits is a space, there is no alternate access method. When it is
a printing character, then there is such a method.
GNU `ls' uses a `.' character to indicate a file with an SELinux
security context, but no other alternate access method.
A file with any other combination of alternate access methods is
marked with a `+' character.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 17:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sVdEJ-16T-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176256 |
On Monday, January 02, 2017 09:52:14 AM David Wright wrote:
> Have you actually looked?
>
> $ man ls | wc -l
> 223
> $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes ls | wc -l
> 853
> $
I think, for a fairer comparison, you should specify ls in the info command.
Then I get:
rhk@s19:~$ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | wc
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
info: Done.
93 517 3738
rhk@s19:~$ man ls | wc
251 946 8102
rhk@s19:~$
Now I'll see if I can do a [w]diff on the two...
$ wdiff `man ls` `info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1"` | less
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
info: Done.
diff: conflicting output style options
diff: Try `diff --help' for more information.
Well, that wasn't useful, I suppose I could read both, or output to a file and
then do a [w]diff...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sVer8-1K6-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176262 |
On Mon 02 Jan 2017 at 11:28:49 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 02, 2017 09:52:14 AM David Wright wrote:
> > Have you actually looked?
> >
> > $ man ls | wc -l
> > 223
> > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes ls | wc -l
> > 853
> > $
>
> I think, for a fairer comparison, you should specify ls in the info command.
> Then I get:
>
> rhk@s19:~$ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | wc
> info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
> info: Done.
> 93 517 3738
> rhk@s19:~$ man ls | wc
> 251 946 8102
> rhk@s19:~$
>
> Now I'll see if I can do a [w]diff on the two...
>
> $ wdiff `man ls` `info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1"` | less
>
> info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
> info: Done.
> diff: conflicting output style options
> diff: Try `diff --help' for more information.
>
> Well, that wasn't useful, I suppose I could read both, or output to a file and
> then do a [w]diff...
See my other post in this thread and have another go using the
command line as intended, ie with "ls" after the options.
That way, your info ls output will be complete.
I haven't tried to figure out why this:
$ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "" | wc
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
info: Done.
93 517 3738
$ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes | wc
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)ls invocation...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Which files are listed...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)What information is listed...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Sorting the output...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Details about version sort...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)General output formatting...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Formatting file timestamps...
info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Formatting the file names...
info: Done.
853 4427 32233
$
BTW glad you got your photo frame working OK (in another thread).
I thought it might work that way. But back in this thread, note
how they roll on and on. We are still posting under the subject
line "Do have programs have poor documentation?"
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sVeU9-1U4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176265 |
On Monday, January 02, 2017 12:12:53 PM David Wright wrote: > BTW glad you got your photo frame working OK (in another thread). Thanks! > I thought it might work that way. But back in this thread, note > how they roll on and on. We are still posting under the subject > line "Do have programs have poor documentation?" Yup! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUREd-2NG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176174 |
On Sunday, 1 January 2017 12:36:51 PYST Xen wrote: > Thomas Schmitt schreef op 31-12-2016 11:59: > > Well, "info" is the pet of GNU and thus often better documentation for > > GNU tools than their "man" pages. > > The goal and viewpoint is nevertheless the same: Technical > > documentation > > of programs, not tutorial. > > I personally also cannot use "info". I have tried many times in the > past. Always gave up pretty quickly. Just unusable to me. > > I would need to study a tutorial on how to use info and I don't even > want to. > > > The reason why many large man pages or info documents are so hard to > > grasp is really in the difference of viewpoints. Too much background > > knowledge and too exotic programmer's motivations, i assume. > > Yes exactly. You are assumed to already know the program when you start > reading the man page. > > You are assumed to know everything the programmer knows. This is the > "Linux is easy" fallacy that originates from people forgetting how long > it took them to acquire some knowledge, and now they think it was easy > all this time for them, but they had to become familiar with it at first > as well. > > For example, if you are new to LVM, and you are in some rescue mode that > doesn't automatically activate your volume groups, doing "vgchange -ay" > is not that intuitive. "man lvm" is also not helpful. You will first > need to find the required command (vgchange) before you can get any > help, but you don't know that you need that one because you don't feel > you want to change the vg, you only want to activate it. This can > quickly elude you for some time and especially if you are in a pinch and > suffering already, you may not have the time and mental capacity for it. > You are trying to rescue your system and cannot find the tool to do it > with, but you don't have internet so you can't look it up and..... > > Then some fool will later day: "Why don't you just do vgchange -ay?" And > if you then say "Well that is not that easy to know" they will say "man > vgchange" "easy". > > > Nevertheless i suffer like most other people when i have to study > > foreign > > technical docs for the first time. > > So it is not dumb user versus smart programmer but rather insider > > versus > > newcommer. > > Yes, exactly. Interestingly enough the motto of 33. Chaos Communication Congress in Hamburg was: "Works for me". They aimed at getting programmers out of their lethargy because their software not only has to "work for them" but also for everybody else. An interesting write-up is here: https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/33C3-Hacker-greifen-nach-der-grossen-politischen-Nummer-3579778.html?wt_mc=rss.ho.beitrag.rdf Unfortunately only in German but Google Translate might help. Well maybe not so much with "The Awful German Language" [tm Marc Twain] Cheers Eike -- Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE Asuncion / Paraguay “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” ... (Acts 8:30, 31)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 19:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? |
| Message-ID | <sUT3k-3Pg-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176206 |
Eike Lantzsch schreef op 01-01-2017 17:58: > Interestingly enough the motto of 33. Chaos Communication Congress in > Hamburg > was: "Works for me". They aimed at getting programmers out of their > lethargy > because their software not only has to "work for them" but also for > everybody > else. An interesting write-up is here: > https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/33C3-Hacker-greifen-nach-der-grossen-politischen-Nummer-3579778.html?wt_mc=rss.ho.beitrag.rdf It translates terrible to Dutch and I wish I could stil read German. The problem with the web these days is that the main language you already use (which for me would be English, like) improves while everything else falls. Someone commented here about the education system for languages in the Netherlands? I feel nothing much has changed and we still learn English, German and French in school. There is just no longer any opportunity to make use of it unless you are: on holiday or living in the east of the Netherlands (Germany). My German reading skills are now so poor even though I have had 6 years of formal education in it, that reading it takes too much trouble if it is longer than a paragraph and I prefer to use Google Translate to just scan the text. "Nun lautet das Kongressmotto "Works for me", was für eine unter Software-Entwicklern verbreitete egozentrische Haltung stehen soll, dass man selbst von einem technischen Fehler nicht betroffen sei und es sich dabei folglich um ein Problem anderer Leute handle." I wish it would be possible to talk to more reasonable people like that. Linux has been for me an advent in unreasonability lately. Most people engaging in Linux only try to promote it. Of course what they mean is the attitude of the open source developer. Regardless on the topic of documentation. Many programmers simply lack the ability to still look at their program from the outside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-31 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUsFP-42C-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176145 |
On Saturday, December 31, 2016 04:34:16 AM Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > 2016-12-30 03:23 keltezéssel, rhkramer@gmail.com írta: > > There is noting magic about man pages--what I'm trying to say is that, > > someone could start writing something similar to man pages, with all the > > detail or introductory / explanatory material you (they) might want. > > Maybe call them bman (for beginner man) pages? > > It is better if you call them 'info'. This is already exists, though > less used but I think this is that you wish for. Thanks for the on target reply! I would say two things about info pages: * they use a different infrastructure than the man pages, one which seems a little more obscure (that probably depends on what you are accustomed to using) * in quite a few cases (at least for me), I've found that the content of the info pages was the same as the content of the man pages But, info pages could work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMEy-8cm-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176157 |
rhkramer@gmail.com schreef op 31-12-2016 15:12: > But, info pages could work. Yes, let's propose that. They are just impossible to navigate if you are not an insider. The fact that pretty much no one uses them is not a red herring at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 15:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVc5X-843-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176175 |
On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 12:39:26 (+0100), Xen wrote: > rhkramer@gmail.com schreef op 31-12-2016 15:12: > > >But, info pages could work. > > Yes, let's propose that. They are just impossible to navigate if you > are not an insider. I don't know what an "insider" is. I have no problem navigating them. I usually consult them with the function $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less which works well with PageUp/Dn. > The fact that pretty much no one uses them is not a red herring at all. How would one know that no one uses them? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVdv3-YY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176255 |
On Monday, January 02, 2017 09:41:07 AM David Wright wrote: > I have no problem navigating them. I usually consult them with the function > > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > which works well with PageUp/Dn. > Nice, thanks! It seems that to get info for a specific command / subject, add the command after info, i.e.: $ info <command> --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less E.g.: $ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 18:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVehs-1Fm-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176261 |
On Mon 02 Jan 2017 at 11:19:21 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, January 02, 2017 09:41:07 AM David Wright wrote: > > I have no problem navigating them. I usually consult them with the function > > > > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > > > which works well with PageUp/Dn. > > > > Nice, thanks! > > It seems that to get info for a specific command / subject, add the command > after info, i.e.: > > $ info <command> --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > E.g.: > > $ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less Actually the "$1" (the bash function's argument) does that task. If you didn't want the piping into less, you could get away with just an alias. BTW I did run my function with wheezy to get the statistics for Gene, and noticed that I should really be throwing /dev/stderr in the bit bucket, ie add 2>/dev/null to the command to suppress lines like info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Sorting the output... which temporarily mess up less's paging. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVeU9-1U4-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176264 |
On Monday, January 02, 2017 12:01:33 PM David Wright wrote: > On Mon 02 Jan 2017 at 11:19:21 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, January 02, 2017 09:41:07 AM David Wright wrote: > > > I have no problem navigating them. I usually consult them with the > > > function > > > > > > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > > > > > which works well with PageUp/Dn. > > > > Nice, thanks! > > > > It seems that to get info for a specific command / subject, add the > > command after info, i.e.: > > > > $ info <command> --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > > > E.g.: > > > > $ info ls --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > Actually the "$1" (the bash function's argument) does that task. > If you didn't want the piping into less, you could get away > with just an alias. Ok, thinking slow (or reading carelessly) today. At first I couldn't figure out why the $1, then assumed you ran it as a script, but now I see--just put ls in place of "$ls". > BTW I did run my function with wheezy to get the statistics for Gene, > and noticed that I should really be throwing /dev/stderr in the bit > bucket, ie add 2>/dev/null to the command to suppress lines like > info: Writing node (coreutils.info.gz)Sorting the output... > which temporarily mess up less's paging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 19:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sVfdv-2gm-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176255 |
David Wright wrote on 01/02/17 15:41: > On Sun 01 Jan 2017 at 12:39:26 (+0100), Xen wrote: >> rhkramer@gmail.com schreef op 31-12-2016 15:12: >> >>> But, info pages could work. >> >> Yes, let's propose that. They are just impossible to navigate if you >> are not an insider. > > I don't know what an "insider" is. > > I have no problem navigating them. I usually consult them with the function > > $ info --output=/dev/stdout --subnodes "$1" | less > > which works well with PageUp/Dn. > >> The fact that pretty much no one uses them is not a red herring at all. > > How would one know that no one uses them? > > Cheers, > David. > A nice tool for reading man pages as well the info pages is emacs. For info pages, start emacs and do "Ctrl-h i". Then you can navigate the info pages with the mouse-pointer and -buttons. You can do a local search in the current page with the emacs-typical "Ctrl-s" and even a global search through all sub-pages with just "s" and entering the search term. Man pages can be displayed with "Esc-x man Ret" and entering the name your searching a man page for. The name can be completed with "Tab". Regards, jvp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 02:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sTUkO-66g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176061 |
Re Lisi: "No. The problem here is that the overlap between highly competent technical people (who find tech fun) and people who love writing, and find writing fun, is so small. I personally know one, and he is not a developer. Developers love developing. Writers love writing. Neither regards the other as occupation as fun." You do realize that coding implies hammering on a keyboard too, right? :p. I am a person who both enjoys writing documentation and writing programs. I have been programming since the age of about 8 and since the age of about 12 I was already documenting code and writing documentation for the would-be users that never came about ;-). Cause like, there was no internet anyway, and pretty much no way to distribute anything. For me there wasn't. I question whether taking on some directed SoC project (a tutored project on something you might not have chosen or come up with yourself) as some forms of bug hunting might fall into that, would actually be more fun (to me) than writing or improving documentation. Bug hunting seems like a rather poor way to spend time to me. You'll just be tracing someone else's code. That's not coding, that's analysing. If anything, reading other people's code is not fun. To me it isn't. I like creative developing much more than fixing stuff made by others. How entirely tiresome that is!!! Writing documentation on the other hand is easy, all of what you do is probably gonna be on one page (or one successive document), you're not hunting around for stuff, you can probably base yourself on stuff written by others before you, which makes it less mentally tiresome, since the data is already there and you only have to rewrite it or reorganize it. So miss Lisi, I don't know who you are, but I don't think your emphatic "no" is warranted. I don't believe in doing other people's work anyway, but just saying, to me writing documentation or improving documentation seems like a lot more fun than doing other people's obnoxious coding work ;-). I can only see it happening if some university already gave courses on technical writing though however. Documenting someone else's code (or program) might not be fun, but writing someone else's program may not be fun either. "See my paragraph above. And then there is the educational system which here anyway tends to separate the techy from the arty very young." In Delft there are master studies (and master courses) in which students of two different branches have to cooperate. For example, in Information Architecture there are joint courses between IT students and Business students. Simply because it is about modelling organisations, and they are good at both, or both are good at that. So my question to you would be: - Do you see this as being the case, or are you wanting this to stay the same? Because from your answers I would get that you very much enjoy this staying the same. I mean, the separation you mention. You seem to revel in this separation and that there are no technical writers who actually enjoy writing while also being developers of some kind. Because you can do one of two things: keep things the same, or get this rift to heal. The proposal by Richard Owlett was a proposal to heal the rift, but you seem to be fighting that. Because really. There is one thing that is always clear to me here. The ones that are bad at writing also have attitudes that make them bad at writing but that they will defend to the death. The thread and the responses by Catherine Gramze is one example of that. She defends bad writing. She comes up with all kinds of excuses as to not want to explain anything. Saying it is Good to not explain stuff. If you are going to say it is Good not to explain stuff, BAD WRITING WILL ENSUE. So if there is a dearth of good writers, it is because there is an overabundance of bad attitudes. To writing. You try to convince me that explaining stuff to new users is bad because you want your man pages to be reference only material. That is something only a bad writer would say. And anyone saying that would become a bad writer. It is a bad writing attitude. It is providing justifications (and excuses) for your bad writing. But more importantly, it is saying that writing badly is a Good thing. If you stopped calling bad documentation Good, maybe something would happen. If people in general recognised bad writing as bad writing, maybe they would become good writers. Maybe they would become good at it. But if you insist that badly written text or badly written documentation is actually good, well no small wonder then that there are no writers who enjoy doing it. You hate doing it yourself. You defend badly written texts. And you even attack writing that is actually good (even though you may not even have seen it yet) because you cannot even imagine what such writing would be!!! Cause you're a bad writer and can't do it yourself!!! Speaking in a bit of a general term here, not directing to anyone. The problem is not that you can't do it. The problem is that you call good writing bad, and bad writing good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 03:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sTV7b-6Di-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176086 |
On Friday 30 December 2016 01:37:53 Xen wrote: > Re Lisi: You clearly find wittering on yourself more fun than actually reading what other people have written. You have actually quoted my precise words, then accused me in your paraphrase of having said something completely different. Try reading what I have actually said, whilst making some attempt to understand it, instead of just contradicting it. You do enjoy contradicting people, don't you? I am glad to hear that the education system in Holland is better than here. I am not surprised and do not doubt it. Lisi > > "No. The problem here is that the overlap between highly competent > technical > people (who find tech fun) and people who love writing, and find writing > fun, > is so small. I personally know one, and he is not a developer. > Developers > love developing. Writers love writing. Neither regards the other as > occupation as fun." > > You do realize that coding implies hammering on a keyboard too, right? > > :p. > > I am a person who both enjoys writing documentation and writing > programs. I have been programming since the age of about 8 and since the > age of about 12 I was already documenting code and writing documentation > for the would-be users that never came about ;-). > > Cause like, there was no internet anyway, and pretty much no way to > distribute anything. > > For me there wasn't. > > I question whether taking on some directed SoC project (a tutored > project on something you might not have chosen or come up with yourself) > as some forms of bug hunting might fall into that, would actually be > more fun (to me) than writing or improving documentation. > > Bug hunting seems like a rather poor way to spend time to me. You'll > just be tracing someone else's code. That's not coding, that's > analysing. If anything, reading other people's code is not fun. To me it > isn't. I like creative developing much more than fixing stuff made by > others. How entirely tiresome that is!!! > > Writing documentation on the other hand is easy, all of what you do is > probably gonna be on one page (or one successive document), you're not > hunting around for stuff, you can probably base yourself on stuff > written by others before you, which makes it less mentally tiresome, > since the data is already there and you only have to rewrite it or > reorganize it. > > So miss Lisi, I don't know who you are, but I don't think your emphatic > "no" is warranted. > > I don't believe in doing other people's work anyway, but just saying, to > me writing documentation or improving documentation seems like a lot > more fun than doing other people's obnoxious coding work ;-). > > I can only see it happening if some university already gave courses on > technical writing though however. > > Documenting someone else's code (or program) might not be fun, but > writing someone else's program may not be fun either. > > > "See my paragraph above. And then there is the educational system which > here > anyway tends to separate the techy from the arty very young." > > In Delft there are master studies (and master courses) in which students > of two different branches have to cooperate. For example, in Information > Architecture there are joint courses between IT students and Business > students. Simply because it is about modelling organisations, and they > are good at both, or both are good at that. > > So my question to you would be: > > - Do you see this as being the case, or are you wanting this to stay the > same? > > Because from your answers I would get that you very much enjoy this > staying the same. I mean, the separation you mention. > > You seem to revel in this separation and that there are no technical > writers who actually enjoy writing while also being developers of some > kind. > > Because you can do one of two things: keep things the same, or get this > rift to heal. The proposal by Richard Owlett was a proposal to heal the > rift, but you seem to be fighting that. > > > > Because really. There is one thing that is always clear to me here. > > The ones that are bad at writing also have attitudes that make them bad > at writing but that they will defend to the death. > > The thread and the responses by Catherine Gramze is one example of that. > She defends bad writing. She comes up with all kinds of excuses as to > not want to explain anything. Saying it is Good to not explain stuff. > > If you are going to say it is Good not to explain stuff, BAD WRITING > WILL ENSUE. > > So if there is a dearth of good writers, it is because there is an > overabundance of bad attitudes. To writing. You try to convince me that > explaining stuff to new users is bad because you want your man pages to > be reference only material. > > That is something only a bad writer would say. > > And anyone saying that would become a bad writer. > > It is a bad writing attitude. > > It is providing justifications (and excuses) for your bad writing. > > But more importantly, it is saying that writing badly is a Good thing. > > If you stopped calling bad documentation Good, maybe something would > happen. If people in general recognised bad writing as bad writing, > maybe they would become good writers. Maybe they would become good at > it. > > But if you insist that badly written text or badly written documentation > is actually good, well no small wonder then that there are no writers > who enjoy doing it. You hate doing it yourself. You defend badly written > texts. And you even attack writing that is actually good (even though > you may not even have seen it yet) because you cannot even imagine what > such writing would be!!! Cause you're a bad writer and can't do it > yourself!!! > > Speaking in a bit of a general term here, not directing to anyone. > > The problem is not that you can't do it. The problem is that you call > good writing bad, and bad writing good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 18:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sU9aa-7kB-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176088 |
Lisi Reisz wrote: > Try reading what I have actually said, whilst making some attempt to > understand it, instead of just contradicting it. You do enjoy > contradicting people, don't you? > Hah, Lisi I just got the same impression from Xen. > I am glad to hear that the education system in Holland is better than > here. I am not surprised and do not doubt it. If nothing changes the education systems in all FED subordered countries will be equally bad in not more than 20-30y. We'll have 2 class society as in the middle ages. Xen, I knew older dutch people who were speaking 4-5 languages ... nowdays I heard languages are not more subject in school. Why learn German anyway, when everybody speaks English? Isn't it that way now in the schools in NL? And this is just in 10-15y period. Not to discuss about the TV channel quality in NL. Compared to UK it was indeed better (irony). I don't know about US, but here in EU all is getting averaged to the lowest mark possible. When I was studying dutch some 20y ago I watched dutch TV and it was still good, but now it is rubbish, and the same all over Europe. A lot of people stopped watching TV - I don't for 10y already. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMEy-8cm-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176119 |
deloptes wrote: > [...] I don't know about US, but here in EU all is getting averaged to > the lowest mark possible. Pretty sure they've been doing that here since at least the 80s. It's become even more pronounced since '00 though. -- |_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947 |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUMOe-8fT-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176173 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le duodi 12 nivôse, an CCXXV, Dan Purgert a écrit : > > [...] I don't know about US, but here in EU all is getting averaged to > > the lowest mark possible. > Pretty sure they've been doing that here since at least the 80s. It's > become even more pronounced since '00 though. Considering people have been saying exactly that for every period of time since the Antiquity, and the literacy rate then was less than 20%... I will leave you draw your own conclusions. EOT for me, this is completely off-topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 14:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal") |
| Message-ID | <sUO3D-JY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #176177 |
Nicolas George wrote: > Considering people have been saying exactly that for every period of > time since the Antiquity, and the literacy rate then was less than > 20%... I will leave you draw your own conclusions. this is not true. Europe and US including Russia had exponential growth during the 18-19century. This all was killed by the FED and the layers, through the revolutions and the marxist-communists, who are now called green party or alike, but it is a different story. Your statement is not true. There have been periods in history where people complained and periods when society was stable. We are in the part of the cycle, but we have to do something ourself to come out of the cycle. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web