Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ssc!fyl From: fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: man pages & SCO Xenix Summary: You could do what we do ... Message-ID: <1320@ssc.UUCP> Date: 5 Jul 88 16:15:03 GMT References: <45@telcomm.UUCP> <6800002@cpe> <385@vector.UUCP> <699@nod2sco> Organization: Slugland, USA Lines: 31 In article <699@nod2sco>, ericg@sco.COM (Mwa ha ha) writes: > chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) wrote in article <385@vector.UUCP>: > ]As a side issue, I've never understood why XENIX took one suitably crummy > ]convention (1 2 3 ... 8) and replaced it with another crummy convention > ](C F M S ...). > I doubt anything will fix this. The problem stems from chopping up > Unix into different pieces: OS, Development System, and Text processing. > If you did not separate the man pages is some other way than the > (1,2,...8) scheme, when you bought the DS, you would have to alphabetize > all the sections yourself. I suggest doing what we did. We publish pocket references for various flavors of UNIX (yes, even XENIX, SCO has bought thousands from us). We decided to include all of the commands for OS, Development System and Text Processing in one booklet and indicate what package they are from. We use something like a dot for development system and diamond for text processing. Then, when you use the reference, if you have everything you don't care. If you don't have everything and you pick a command and then realize it has a dot in front of it, you need the development system. SCO could just include the man pages for all the programs marked in such a manner. They, ship all the other docs with each package. It probably wouldn't increase the cost of the documentation package very much and would be good advertising for the other products. :r .sig -- Phil uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl