Re: QUESTION: man pages
From: Alan Connor (zzzzzz_at_xxx.yyy)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:53:18 GMT
On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:15:26 +0000 (UTC), Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, Alan Connor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:38:08 -0500, John Hasler <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Alan Connor writes:
>> >> A man page is supposed to be a cheat sheet, not a manual. The name is a
>> >> misnomer.
>> > No it isn't. "Man page" means "page from the manual", the manual being the
>> > Unix manual.
>> Semantical problem here. I am referring to the difference, for example,
>> between man slrn and /usr/share/doc/slrn/manual.txt, which is considerable.
> No, just an implementation problem. slrn has a cheat sheet instead of
> a man page.
You are simply wrong. A man page is a cheat sheet written for and by experts,
which is why they drive newbies crazy. They are *synopses* of the manuals.
They are not actually manuals, which are much larger and more detailed, and
are found elsewhere, usually in a directory like /usr/share/doc/whatever. These
are often referred to at the bottom of the man pages.
Many of them also say so at the bottom of the man page:
The full documentation for mv is maintained as a Texinfo
manual. If the info and mv programs are properly
installed at your site, the command
should give you access to the complete manual.
I am very tired of repeating the obvious to alleged experts. Thanks for your
help with *roff, Eli. I'm killfiling this thread out of boredom.
-- Pass-List -----> Block-List ----> Challenge-Response The key to taking control of your mailbox. Design Parameters: http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp || http://tinyurl.com/3c3ag Challenge-Response links -- http://tinyurl.com/yrfjb