summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/public/poor-system-documentation.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'public/poor-system-documentation.html')
-rw-r--r--public/poor-system-documentation.html58
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/public/poor-system-documentation.html b/public/poor-system-documentation.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2611856
--- /dev/null
+++ b/public/poor-system-documentation.html
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html lang="en">
+<head>
+ <meta charset="utf-8">
+ <title>Why documentation on GNU/Linux sucks — Luke T. Shumaker</title>
+ <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
+ <link rel="stylesheet" href="assets/style.css">
+ <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" href="./index.atom" name="web log entries"/>
+</head>
+<body>
+<header><a href="/">Luke T. Shumaker</a> » <a href=/blog>blog</a> » poor-system-documentation</header>
+<article>
+<h1 id="why-documentation-on-gnulinux-sucks">Why documentation on
+GNU/Linux sucks</h1>
+<p>This is based on a post on <a
+href="http://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/zoffo/systemd_we_will_keep_making_it_the_distro_we_like/c66uu57">reddit</a>,
+published on 2012-09-12.</p>
+<p>The documentation situation on GNU/Linux based operating systems is
+right now a mess. In the world of documentation, there are basically 3
+camps, the “UNIX” camp, the “GNU” camp, and the “GNU/Linux” camp.</p>
+<p>The UNIX camp is the <code>man</code> page camp, they have quality,
+terse but informative man pages, on <em>everything</em>, including the
+system’s design and all system files. If it was up to the UNIX camp,
+<code>man grub.cfg</code>, <code>man grub.d</code>, and
+<code>man grub-mkconfig_lib</code> would exist and actually be helpful.
+The man page would either include inline examples, or point you to a
+directory. If I were to print off all of the man pages, it would
+actually be a useful manual for the system.</p>
+<p>Then GNU camp is the <code>info</code> camp. They basically thought
+that each piece of software was more complex than a man page could
+handle. They essentially think that some individual pieces software
+warrant a book. So, they developed the <code>info</code> system. The
+info pages are usually quite high quality, but are very long, and a pain
+if you just want a quick look. The <code>info</code> system can generate
+good HTML (and PDF, etc.) documentation. But the standard
+<code>info</code> is awkward as hell to use for non-Emacs users.</p>
+<p>Then we have the “GNU/Linux” camp, they use GNU software, but want to
+use <code>man</code> pages. This means that we get low-quality man pages
+for GNU software, and then we don’t have a good baseline for
+documentation, developers each try to create their own. The
+documentation that gets written is frequently either low-quality, or
+non-standard. A lot of man pages are auto-generated from
+<code>--help</code> output or info pages, meaning they are either not
+helpful, or overly verbose with low information density. This camp gets
+the worst of both worlds, and a few problems of its own.</p>
+
+</article>
+<footer>
+ <aside class="sponsor"><p>I'd love it if you <a class="em"
+ href="/sponsor/">sponsored me</a>. It will allow me to continue
+ <a class="em" href="/imworkingon/">my work</a> on the GNU/Linux
+ ecosystem. Thanks!</p></aside>
+
+<p>The content of this page is Copyright © 2012 <a href="mailto:lukeshu@lukeshu.com">Luke T. Shumaker</a>.</p>
+<p>This page is licensed under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</a> license.</p>
+</footer>
+</body>
+</html>