Subject: Re: What information belongs into man pages?
To: Hauke Fath <hauke@Espresso.Rhein-Neckar.DE>
From: David Griffith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/19/2006 12:56:36
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Hauke Fath wrote:
> At 8:46 Uhr +0200 19.10.2006, Alan Barrett wrote:
> >I think that the man pages are references, and that we should care
> >deeply about their quality. I think that it's useful to provide some
> >tutorial material, much as you have done in this case, but that we
> >should stop short of making the man pages a "how to learn to be a
> >programmer" guide book.
> There's the rub. In daily use, I appreciate NetBSD's man pages for their
> concise terseness. Look at the typical Linux Distributions for examples of
> what a man page should not be. It's called "man page" for a reason...
One of my big peeves with Linux is the conspicuous lack of manpages for
various daemons. Or else they have a stub of a manpage that tells me to
look at the info page, which is frequently absent.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?