Re: man missing ?
Well think about this? do you need to install all of the pakcages under
windows3.x or windows9x to get it to work. games solitaire and
mindsweeper. you don't need man-db to get linux running. that is the issue
not the convience of the "newbie" to make it easier to install. if you
want that try windows operating system. windows comes on a cd to install
the complete windows operating system you need roughly 150-200 megs of
hardrive space. Is this what you want. the next thing people will want who
are new to linux will be emacs.
As I stated in the this thread man-db is not necessary to get linux up and
running it is there for convience.
Paul
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Kent West wrote:
At 11:07 AM 1/26/1999 -0500, MallarJ@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/26/99 9:55:07 AM Central Standard Time,
>paul@experimental.braille.uwo.ca writes:
>
>> hello, very simple. Man-db is not necessary to run linux. it is nice to
>> have but if you don't have man linux can still run. the other reason why
>> man is not included in the base distribution is the space issue.
>>
>
>I see that point, but....
>
>* How big is it, really, especially tarred and gzipped. I can't imagine one
>more boot disk is that big of an issue. If it's more than one disk, maybe a
>subset of the manpages is warranted that CAN be included.
>
>* Being that man is the basic help system of Linux, it's too important to NOT
>include in the boot disks. ESPECIALLY for new users.
>
>* Man may not be required, but everyone on this list constantly points to man
>pages. The reference manuals constantly point to man pages. It's totally
>frustrating to be told to read the man pages, but you don't have them, and
>can't figure out how to get them because you don't have the man pages.
>
>Jay
As a relatively new newbie, I have to agree with Jay on this one.
Reply to: