The (or a) problem with Unix manpages

April 3, 2009

Unix has three sorts of manpages: excellent ones that clearly answer your questions, good ones that answer your questions if you read them carefully, and bad ones that aren't worth reading because they don't answer your questions (at least in a way that you can understand).

The first sort are rare and obvious when encountered, which means that when you read a manpage you are generally trying to guess whether you are dealing with the second sort or the third sort. The problem is that there are significantly more of the third sort than there are of the second sort, so people (myself included) are trained into aggressively skimming manpages instead of reading them carefully, because usually reading carefully doesn't actually help and just wastes your time.

And this is a problem because then you run into a manpage that actually does answer your questions, except you didn't bother to read it carefully so you didn't notice (if you are lucky, you notice later). This is usually at least a bit embarrassing.

(This actually generalizes to other documentation, but I think that Unix manpages are a large source of this sort of thing, partly because they aggregate together in one spot a lot of documentation from a lot of different people.)


Comments on this page:

By rdump at 2009-04-03 19:38:08:

I don't have this problem with OpenBSD man pages. Those, I read for detail, since I know that they'll usefully and accurately describe the program or facility I'm trying to use.

That brings up an additional fourth sort of man page for your list, however. I refer to the man pages that aren't worth reading because they contain misleading or outright incorrect information. For one example, I just wasted a few hours tracking down what I thought was a bug in a ported app on FreeBSD because the man page for the utility I was using lists seriously incorrect command line options. <sigh>

From 96.242.210.101 at 2009-04-03 21:33:11:

The excellent: bash, find

The good: updatedb, ln

The horrible: info, groff

From 208.87.58.107 at 2009-04-04 01:12:28:

Funny, I was going to mention bash as an example of a terrible manpage. It's way too long and complex. manpages that big should be split in to subsections like the perl manpages.

Phil Hollenback, www.hollenback.net

By cks at 2009-04-06 13:03:17:

I think that one of the problems with manpages in general is that there is no really good option for multi-section manpages. My reluctant view is that at that point you do need something like hypertext or (tex)info documentation, where it is easy to jump around between sections and narrow down to just what you need.

From 216.93.205.12 at 2011-01-02 12:36:17:

Some man pages have this irksome flaw: "The full documentation for foo is maintained as a Texinfo manual." But when you consult "info foo", it's exactly the same as the man page. Sheesh. -- Charles Polisher

By trs80 at 2011-01-16 10:01:35:

Charles: That's a misfeature of info in Debian. Binaries must ship with manpages, but texinfo docs are often shipped in a separate -doc package, and info falls back to the man page if texinfo isn't available.

Written on 03 April 2009.
« How to use Vixie cron to schedule at regular odd times
Why I don't expect ARM-based netbooks to be a success »

Page tools: View Source, View Normal, Add Comment.
Search:
Login: Password:
Atom Syndication: Recent Comments.

Last modified: Fri Apr 3 18:31:54 2009
This dinky wiki is brought to you by the Insane Hackers Guild, Python sub-branch.