🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sunday, in article <840978230snz@billkath.demon.co.uk>
     William@billkath.demon.co.uk "William Howard" wrote:

..
WH> Has another look at nos.cfg...
WH> 
WH> "#SAMPLE: these are the defaults used.
WH> #These are new names for the various files and directories used in nos.
WH> #To use them, run nos as 'nos -fnos.cfg' "
WH> 
WH> Hummm.
..
WH> Does Robert mean to say:
WH> 
WH> "Run nos as 'nos = fnos.cfg''?

I doubt that.  I've not tried the program, but I expect
he meant to say what he said.

Just get all the sensible human parts of your brain surgically
removed, and you'll be left with a Unix mindset.  Then you'll
see that Robert's instruction breaks down into:

        nos     the name of the program
        -       option coming up, I wonder which one?
        f       Ahah, the 'f' option
        nos.cfg the file to specify for the mysterious 'f' option.

Wild guess, the 'f' probably stands for 'file', as in 'use
this configuration File', and since you say you actually
have a file called nos.cfg, that seems to fit together
pretty well as a theory.

As for the standard of Robert's docs, judging by what you've
quoted, yes, it looks abysmal, otherwise known as industry
standard.  But rather better than my own efforts, which
are often just no docs at all.

WH> (...to be continued)

Er, look, I may be way outta line here, there could well be
crowdsa people lurking and loving every minute of this saga.
But, judging by the lack of follow-ups, then again, maybe
there aren't.

Since Rob's on hols, how about you go into a quiet corner,
continue writing your autobiog, and mail it to Rob.  Then
we can all enjoy a summary of the juicy bits after the fat
lady sings.

This is just one very personal view, and if even so much as
one reader would like to see the story unfold in real time,
I'll step back and happily see it scroll on.

I do hope you get it up and running, William.

--
John Washington