Of course you must be aware that typing "man <something here>" into google brings up man pages anyway.
Not sure why you want them, though. The formatting that man uses is horrible. Stick to MSDN for the OGL 1.1 stuff, else hit up the relevant extension spec(s).
man like functionalty in windows
I remember in server 2003 (probably in other ms servers as well) there were newer shell commands that interfaced with the servers meta dbs, those had fairly extensive helps.. and they were newer than the archaic dir cd copy etc commands :P but yeah, those arent man pages either...
but theres no reason you couldnt have a man viewer in your windows (kind of forced the pun a bit). just something to parse and display the .man files. if it's not out there already (im SURE they have that in cygwin or mingw) it would probably not be too much work to write one.
but theres no reason you couldnt have a man viewer in your windows (kind of forced the pun a bit). just something to parse and display the .man files. if it's not out there already (im SURE they have that in cygwin or mingw) it would probably not be too much work to write one.
Quote:Original post by Libvan
Installing cygwin is your only hope :P
Yep, that's the first thing I do on any windows box actually. Bash alone is worth it as a much better way to get around on the command line. I'm not sure if additional libraries (like OGL) man files are installed though. You could always download them separately and put them in the proper directory I would think.
Quote:Original post by eastcoastsurferYou should try the new MS shell. It compares to bash in much the same way that bash compares to the built in emulated DOS shell.
Bash alone is worth it as a much better way to get around on the command line.
Quote:Original post by PromitQuote:Original post by eastcoastsurferYou should try the new MS shell. It compares to bash in much the same way that bash compares to the built in emulated DOS shell.
Bash alone is worth it as a much better way to get around on the command line.
I would but that would require to me upgrade from Win2k first...
I guess eventually I'll be forced to spend $150 on winxp pro.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement