Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!eslvcr!ted
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: nroff availability (was: Number of users limit for Unix 3.2.1 ?)
Summary: There is a legitimate need.
Message-ID: <1990Sep29.035441.14150@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 29 Sep 90 03:54:41 GMT
References: <1990Sep23.145904.18199@uhura.neoucom.EDU> <1990Sep25.160828.10694@iguana.uucp>
Reply-To: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver, BC
Lines: 19

In article <1990Sep25.160828.10694@iguana.uucp> merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes:
>In article <1990Sep23.145904.18199@uhura.neoucom.EDU> wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) writes:
>>That leads me to one gripe.  You'd think that AT&T could at least
>>include the nroff part of DWB as part of the full Unix system.  Not
>>being able to format and print man pages is ridiculous.  Expecting
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>man pages? what man pages?
>AT&T Sys V 3.2.[012] are not distributed with man pages.
>that's another $10K

What man pages? Presumably the same man pages they had in mind when
they made deroff(1) part of the Foundation Set. I believe that most
readers of this article will be aware of a number of legitimate sources,
the most obvious being internally generated documentation. The price of
man pages for the system is not in itself a valid argument, any more
than the fact that most mail is internally generated (rather than being
supplied by AT&T) is an argument against providing mailx(1).
-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted    (Ted Powell)