[haiku] Re: Man
- From: pete.goodeve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:40:40 -0700
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:07:25AM +0300, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
> hi,
>
> 2010.08.30 08:28, Christoph Thompson ras(e.:
> >
> [.....] BeOS was all about getting rid
> >of legacy stuff.
>
> But it didn't get rid of bash, nor Terminal itself. While not so
> user-friendly, terminal applications provide at least one major
> advantage over GUI-based ones: their input and output can be piped. I've
> yet to see how someone would implement that in a GUI world. Feel free to
> turn that into a research subject. ;)
Ahem... (:-)) My 'Weaver' system has a module ("PipeStream") for doing
just that... (:-)) Admittedly there are some glitches, like panel layout,
before it runs nicely in Haiku, but I have been using it there.
(And it is just running console command apps, but they are connected
by GUI 'pipes'. And streams can branch and merge...!)
On the other hand, I really don't understand those here who seem so
fanatically opposed to the command line. It does things -- like supplying
parameters -- more conveniently than a GUI, and is in general much more
flexible. All made even more convenient by 'hybrid' actions, like dragging
a file from a Tracker window as an argument. I suspect I spend *at least*
50% of my time in a Terminal window.
And a large proportion of the icons I click on (or drag onto) are actually
bash (or Ruby, or Python) scripts under xicon. My desktop is littered
with them.
I can somewhat understand the lukewarm feeling toward 'man' -- I've
typically used 'rman' to convert the ones I have on BeOS to HTML, but
that's partly because I never found a convenient man-page reader for
the system. On other systems though, I've never felt objection to
typing 'man whatever' when I am in Terminal mode. [I do have stronger
feelings against gnu's 'info', because its navigation is so antiquated.]
>
> I really don't see how having a proper (as in console-based) man would
> degrade Haiku's usability. Like Ben said, manpages would cover console
> commands anyway, so those who don't use them would not be affected by
> its existence in any way.
>
Agreed. It's a fairly cheap feature to have around. Having an automatic
way for WebPositive to display them as well, though, would also be a really
neat facility.
-- Pete --
Other related posts:
