-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:27:54PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:23:26PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 08:58:55AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > My intention was to focus on two aspects of man pages in general: > > > 1. they can use improvement > > > > Always. Definitely. Sometimes a tall order: those coming from the > > Linux man-pages project or from Gnu are generally already quite > > good. > > The Linux man pages are good, usually. The GNU man pages are atrocious. > They even admit it, right in their man pages. They (as a project, as a > whole) *hate* man pages and only write a stub that doesn't even cover > all of the basics. Then they tell you that the real documentation is > their GNU-specific "info" page, and you have to go learn an entirely > new program for reading GNU documentation vs. every other program's > documentation.
While Gnu does prefer info format to man page format (and they have their reasons, e.g. info allows links), the man pages (usually derived from the texinfo source) are well-structured, complete and have a solid language. I can't agree with you in that they are "atrocious", barring some exceptions. De gustibus... obviously. regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlguIyUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbqyACeMBFHWt1qK4CA5sGBWjm5kJyf 02IAnApQbeSjmrxB+oZab+jOh2c+CQxQ =qC8J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
