The main thing about man pages is that it is a "manual": reference material for people who already know the basics. If you are just getting started, don't read the man pages, but read one of the many "Getting Started" or "Quick Guide" or "Beginning XXX" books. Those will generally be tailored to beginners, including features such as discussions of unifying themes between different commands, historical references and…
Usually it’s just me trying to do some task and not caring to ever “learn the command” with any depth (because I don’t use it enough for that to be worthwhile). That’s why examples are great. I can probably usually just scan the examples and quickly recognize the one that does the thing I want to do.
Simplified and community-driven man pages
31–40 of 169 posts
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#32There are a bunch of projects like this, check out `cheat` and `bropages` as well.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#33Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#34When people think of manpages, they tend to think of Linux. At least that's what I thought of, until a few months ago when I discovered OpenBSD. Their manual is concise and coherent, unlike the rambling hodgepodge on Linux. Of course it's always nice to have a bunch of curated examples like TLDR or "bro" pages, but just wanted to point out that the manpage situation isn't universally grim.
By Linux do you mean GNU? Because those are the wordiest and least straightforward. BSDs tend to have excellent documentation as do some individual projects (git), while others (OpenSSL) leave something to be desired. And of course GNU tar is a special little hell. But Linux just happens to run on a GNU userland most of the time so you get those a lot.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#35Anyone ever get anything useful out of info pages (vs man pages)? I never quite got what their deal was.
Info pages are at least an order of magnitude more efficient to navigate than the html documentation that has supplanted them. All the following are fast and a single keypress:
- regexp (s)earch (not just the current page, the whole document)
- hierarchical navigation ((u)p, (n)ext, (p)revious)
- jump to any (i)ndex topic
- jump between links/sections (by position: tab, shift-tab, by na(m)e)
The main shortcoming of info is no support for styling (or graphics) whatsoever, but if you're used to its efficiency using a mix of googling and clicking to navigate the html equivalent is profoundly frustrating.
The closest modern equivalent I know of is Dash.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#36I was lucky to first be introduced to man pages by someone who often just called them "manuals" and (to my best recollection) explained them by telling me "Manuals are to be read, top to bottom, contemplated, and maybe read again, before you act." Thus I was never under the delusion that man pages were, or should strive to be, How-To's of some sort. This TLDR tool definitely needs to exist, but in conjunction with ma…
The synopsis typically lists a bunch of command-line variations with literally no context, not even a line of commentary to tell the difference between the variations.
Then comes a description, which is fine, and then a list of options in alphabetical order which is almost always the least useful ordering. Categorize the parameters. Juxtapose confusingly similar options.
And only then do we get any examples, if any. The examples should have come first, in the synopsis.
There's nothing inherently wrong with man pages, but nobody has to follow this tradition. Put real examples in your synopsis and manually sort your options; you'll have a man page that's 20x better than most.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#37The main thing about man pages is that it is a "manual": reference material for people who already know the basics. If you are just getting started, don't read the man pages, but read one of the many "Getting Started" or "Quick Guide" or "Beginning XXX" books. Those will generally be tailored to beginners, including features such as discussions of unifying themes between different commands, historical references and…
Sure, but what usually happens is you sit down at a Unix command line for the first time and have no idea what to do. You ask someone (after seeing that `help` does nothing useful), and they tell you "use 'man' instead of 'help'". And you have no idea why, but you try it and it kind of helps and is better than nothing. You don't have any idea you should `read one of the many "Getting Started" or "Quick Guide" or "Beg…
Earlier this year, they announced that they have helped over one million developers to exit vim, for example. https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/05/23/stack-overflow-helping...
In my experience, the top-rated SO answer is typically better than the man page, because it answers the specific question I have, rather than listing all of the options in alphabetical order, forcing me to search the page itself for the information I really wanted.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#38When people think of manpages, they tend to think of Linux. At least that's what I thought of, until a few months ago when I discovered OpenBSD. Their manual is concise and coherent, unlike the rambling hodgepodge on Linux. Of course it's always nice to have a bunch of curated examples like TLDR or "bro" pages, but just wanted to point out that the manpage situation isn't universally grim.
By Linux do you mean GNU? Because those are the wordiest and least straightforward. BSDs tend to have excellent documentation as do some individual projects (git), while others (OpenSSL) leave something to be desired. And of course GNU tar is a special little hell. But Linux just happens to run on a GNU userland most of the time so you get those a lot.
GNU historically never made man pages: they used Texinfo for documentation, possibly combined with a tool to convert Texinfo to man pages. That shows in the result: an entire manual all joined together in a single unreadably long manual page. The bash man page is a nice example of that. I'm not sure if the use of Texinfo is still a requirement for GNU projects.
The verbosity of the generated man pages for GNU software probably did influence a lot of non-GNU Linux software.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#39There are a bunch of projects like this, check out `cheat` and `bropages` as well.
Re: Simplified and community-driven man pages
#40I was lucky to first be introduced to man pages by someone who often just called them "manuals" and (to my best recollection) explained them by telling me "Manuals are to be read, top to bottom, contemplated, and maybe read again, before you act." Thus I was never under the delusion that man pages were, or should strive to be, How-To's of some sort. This TLDR tool definitely needs to exist, but in conjunction with ma…