1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Why documentation on GNU/Linux sucks — Luke Shumaker</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="assets/style.css">
</head>
<body>
<header><a href="/">Luke 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>
<p>The content of this page is Copyright © 2012 <a href="mailto:lukeshu@sbcglobal.net">Luke Shumaker</a>.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">CC BY-SA-3.0</a> license.</p>
</footer>
</body>
</html>
|
