[aerovistae]

Frankly I've never liked man pages. To me they always screamed "This is how documentation was done in the 90s." The examples are often very unclear or incomplete, and the explanations often assume prior knowledge without providing links in case such knowledge is absent.

Modern documentation has gotten way better, as seen in the Stripe docs and many others, and I wish the man pages could be updated accordingly.

[dingaling]

Yes man pages are usually upside-down; the examples should be right at the start and then lead to a drill-down into options. 9/10 times I end-up having to search the web for a basic introductory example.

But even in big corps corps with ISO9000 accreditation there is seldom self- questioning as to whether documentation is useful rather than just ticking the box for process-completeness.

[ori_b]

No. 90% of the time, I know what I want to do, and how my tools work. I just don't remember the options are called.

Having a summary of the options right there at the top is the most valuable thing in a reference.

[derefr]

You're presuming man pages are primarily meant to serve as a reference. But I rarely need man-pages as a reference†.

Most of the time, if I'm looking up a man-page for something, it's because I've just installed a new package that sounded like it would solve a problem and then did a dpkg-query(1) to find out what binaries came with it—or used apropos(1) to find a relevant binary already installed—and now I want to know what the uses of a given binary are and whether those uses include solving my particular problem.

† Well, except for the utilities with absolutely horrible command-line UX-design, like tar(1) or ps(1) or rsync(1), where I just memorize the options I need for my usual case, and then have to look in the man page to do anything novel.

[qwertyuiop924]

>You're presuming man pages are primarily meant to serve as a reference.

They are.

[derefr]

Let me rephrase: you assume that it makes sense for manpages to continue serving primarily as a reference—that this is the primary use-case people have for the standardized program documentation that ships with their distro packages.

Shipping a reference to a binary with that binary may have made sense before the internet. But nowadays, it's the opposite.

• Complex programs with many options have (sometimes dozens of) websites documenting them thoroughly. (Try searching with any search-engine for "wget mirroring", for example; the number and complexity of the results is overwhelming.)

• Meanwhile, for the simple "corner-case" programs, you really hope that they shipped with docs—because seemingly nobody else out there on the web cares to bother documenting them. With a lot of these little programs, the only web doc you can find are, in fact, online mirrors of their man-page.

For the popular-and-complex programs, man-pages are just redundant, because everyone will document what they did to achieve whatever. But for the simple-but-weird programs—the ones for which man-pages aren't just redundancies—if the man-page doesn't give usage, then nothing is going to give usage.

Now, I can understand why man-pages for these little utilities are the way they are. These programs are usually created by a single author, so time spent writing docs is time not spent fixing bugs or scratching their itch or whatever else. And an options reference certainly is the "minimal normalized form" of documentation: it lets others brute-force combinatoric-search the space of invocations until they find some combination that Works For Them™. Basically, you can (through a lot of trial and error) generate a cookbook from an options reference. So the author probably doesn't feel a strong need to add anything beyond an options reference, because the people who really need to solve the problem their binary solves are willing to go to that effort.

But if you're a distro downstream packager, and it's your job to make your distro easy for people to use, you should have every incentive to submit upstream patches to said author, with manpage additions of cookbook example usages resulting from your trial-and-error experimentation with their program.

Annoyingly, you, as a distro packager, probably don't have time to do that trial-and-error experimentation, especially if the utility serves a niche use-case that you don't even understand. That—and not the fact that "manpages should be a reference and nothing more"—is most of the reason manpages continue to be the way they are.

[ktRolster]

Man pages are written (ideally) as the authoritative reference on your system, where you can go to find information. That sort of thing needs to exist somewhere, it has a clear use case.

An ideal man page is concise, informative, and complete. Learning to read them is like learning to read scientific literature: a pain, but once you figure it out, you're at a higher level.

[qwertyuiop924]

>you assume that it makes sense for manpages to continue serving primarily as a reference

No, I don't. But that's what they are, and what they're meant to be. Complaining that they are is like complaining that Haskell is functional: It may not be ideal for your circumstances, and you're welcome to make that known, but there's no use complaining about it, because it's the entire point.

[Hello71]

> absolutely horrible command-line UX-design, like tar(1) or ps(1) or rsync(1)

how would you improve their design

[derefr]

• The primary win for all of those utilities would be in separating their horribly-large arrays of top-level runtime switches into subcommands that each have a restricted, learnable set of runtime switches relevant only to that subcommand. (See: git, docker, lvm, ip, ufw).

• As well, for top-level switches that are really preferences—that is, switches that don't apply to a use-case, but rather to a user—read those from ~/.config/foo/foorc with defaults in /etc/foo/foorc. Don't expose them at all as runtime switches. If there are features that would be customized by different wrapper-client UIs, provide a --config-file=[file] switch that takes a config-file that sets those. And for special drivers, like Makefiles or CI setups, that have a matrix of different UI options they might want to ask for, you can provide FOO_OPTION env-vars. (See: curl, compiler toolchains, ffmpeg, apt). In ffmpeg's case, there are even config-file presets—basically little plug-ins of config options you can enable as a group. You can dump new files into the /etc/ffmpeg/presets or ~/.config/ffmpeg/presets to add them as presets.

• For switches that are exposed individually, but which are also aggregated into switch-group-setting switches, in most cases there's literally no use-case for setting the individual switches, only the switch-group-setting switch. Remove the individual switches. Just because the program could theoretically be configured to do X compatibility thing for old-arch Foo, but not Y other old compatibility thing for old-arch Foo (where any time you're talking to Foo you always need both), you don't have to expose both an X switch and a Y switch. Just expose a --foo-compat switch and be done with it. People trying to use your binary on other weird OSes shouldn't be doing so by combining tons of option-switches; they should sit down and port your program to that OS, by finding the place in your program where you've defined {arch -> shim flag set} mappings, adding a new mapping for their arch, and exposing it as a new external --bar-compat switch.

• Speaking of compat flags, try just making such behaviors always-on when you build targeting the relevant arch, rather than needing to specify them at runtime. The only real use-case for runtime compat switches is as an IPC/RPC client talking to a server that expects the weird behaviour. And even then, your client should first try to auto-detect the server's expectations, and you should only add the runtime switch if that auto-detection turns out to be unreliable. (Meanwhile, If you're the IPC/RPC server, the compat settings belong in the config file. See: Samba, NFS, Netatalk, ...)

• If your binary manipulates state (like, say, how git manipulates repos), and you change the way it does so in a backward-incompatible manner, you might be tempted to add a runtime switch to turn the old behaviour back on to allow collaboration with people using older versions. If your state-store is at all extensible, though, you should instead add a field for a schema-version and a flag for pinning the state-store to that schema-version, as well as a subcommand to pin/unpin a given state-store's schema-version. Now your binary will upgrade the schema of its state-store by default, but will respect "protected" state-stores and perform only backward-compatible operations on those. (Importantly, this guides the code architecture into failing by default instead of doing something backward-incompatible; whereas, with backcompat switches, you're always forcing a state-store schema-migration on people by default every time you add new code, unless/until you add a matching backcompat-switch.)

• quiet/verbose and interactive/batch are silly "mode switches" to have in modern programs, just like forking is a silly way to do daemons when you've got a modern init(8). Put interactively-useful information on stdout, and do interactive prompting, if-and-only-if isatty(STDIN); put information of all levels of usefulness on syslog with appropriate error-level tags attached. It's up to the thing running your program to provide a PTY or not, and to filter your output or not. Be friendly to expect(1).

These guidelines together should trim each subcommand to a reasonable "visible" option-set. Now just ensure that typing "man command subcommand" gets you a separate man-page written just for the subcommand, and add bash/zsh completion for each subcommand and for the subcommands list itself.

[Hello71]

> • The primary win for all of those utilities would be in separating their horribly-large arrays of top-level runtime switches into subcommands that each have a restricted, learnable set of runtime switches relevant only to that subcommand. (See: git, docker, lvm, ip, ufw).

In principle I agree. In practice, all of the commands you listed are multi-tool commands. For example, git overall can be described as a "content tracker"; only its subcommands can be described as doing one thing, and even then often they do multiple duties (to a newbie, git reset apparently does three different things). In contrast, two of the commands you listed (ps and rsync) do only one thing; list processes and copy files. The third, tar, does technically have multiple modes, but most of the switches apply to multiple modes (-f, compression settings, etc). How would you break these up into subcommands?

> • As well, for top-level switches that are really preferences—that is, switches that don't apply to a use-case, but rather to a user—read those from ~/.config/foo/foorc with defaults in /etc/foo/foorc. Don't expose them at all as runtime switches. If there are features that would be customized by different wrapper-client UIs, provide a --config-file=[file] switch that takes a config-file that sets those. And for special drivers, like Makefiles or CI setups, that have a matrix of different UI options they might want to ask for, you can provide FOO_OPTION env-vars. (See: curl, compiler toolchains, ffmpeg, apt). In ffmpeg's case, there are even config-file presets—basically little plug-ins of config options you can enable as a group. You can dump new files into the /etc/ffmpeg/presets or ~/.config/ffmpeg/presets to add them as presets.

Some would argue that this is an anti-pattern and that such configuration should reside in your shell as an alias or function. Regardless, with the possible exception of ps, for the commands you listed, which options exactly would you move into a configuration file? It would likely not be a good idea, for example, to say that all tar -c commands should imply -J, since that would break lots of scripts.

> • For options that are aggregated into option-set flags, where there's literally no use for the options outside of their use in the option-set flag, remove the individual options. Just because the program could theoretically be configured to do X compatibility thing for old-arch Foo, but not Y other old compatibility thing for old-arch Foo, you don't have to support both an X and Y option. Just expose a --foo-compat option and be done with it. People trying to use your binary on other weird OSes shouldn't be doing so by combining tons of option-switches; they should sit down and port your program to that OS, by finding the place in your program where you've defined {arch -> shim flag set} mappings, adding a new mapping for their arch, and exposing it as a new external --bar-compat switch.

I don't understand what this means. Can you give a concrete example?

> • Speaking of compat flags, try just making such behaviors always-on when you build targeting the relevant arch, rather than needing to specify them at runtime. The only real use-case for runtime compat switches is as an IPC/RPC client talking to a server that expects the weird behaviour. And even then, your client should first try to auto-detect the server's expectations, and you should only add the runtime switch if that auto-detection turns out to be unreliable. (Meanwhile, If you're the IPC/RPC server, the compat settings belong in the config file. See: Samba, NFS, Netatalk, ...)

Again, I don't understand what this means.

> Those four things together should trim each subcommand to a reasonable "visible" option-set. Now just ensure that typing "man command subcommand" gets you a separate man-page written just for the subcommand, and add bash/zsh completion for each subcommand and for the subcommands list itself.

I agree with this conclusion given the premises you provided, but the issue is that the premises themselves appear to be incorrect.

Broadly speaking, most complaints about the commands you listed originate in poor understanding of their interfaces; everybody thinks they're hard, so nobody ever reads the man page and learns how to use them correctly. For example, complaints about not knowing tar -z from -j are mostly a result of not knowing that GNU and at least one BSD tar know how to automatically select compression format in at least some cases. A similar situation is the cause of "ps -aux" and such monstrosities as "rsync -arlv -e ssh dir host:dir".

[gpvos]

For that there is the --help option.

[anjbe]

In practice --help output is mostly useless—it’s neither simple enough for a quick overview nor comprehensive enough to actually know what I can do. Tried “less --help” lately? It spits out ten pages of output!

Plus, every program does --help differently. Does it spit out short output or tons of output so that I need a pager? Does it fork and execute a pager itself, or do I have to run the program again and pipe it to less manually? And then it turns out some programs print --help output to stderr, not stdout, so the pager doesn’t display any output until I do “blahblah --help 2>&1 | less”.

A good manpage beats --help all hollow. It’s simultaneously more brief and more (usefully) verbose. The Synopsis section provides a quick overview of flags, if I just need a quick reminder to jog my memory. But if I want to know the details of a particular flag, I can just scroll down to it or search for it. Mandoc, the default manpage formatter in OpenBSD, even has semantic search built in. It uses more(1)'s built‐in tags functionality to take me straight to whatever flag I want. (You can get this functionality on Linux too by installing mandoc: http://mdocml.bsd.lv/)

Really, horrendous and arcane manpages are a trope that mostly exists in the Linux/GNU world. In BSDs, especially OpenBSD and FreeBSD, clear, simple documentation is a priority. No need for --help or “bropages” when the actual manpages are perfectly clear. For example, check out OpenBSD’s signify(1) manual (http://man.openbsd.org/signify.1), used for cryptographic signing and verification. Compare that to the monstrosity that is gpg(1)… (https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manpage.en.html)

[bluejekyll]

And for this implementing cli, I've found http://docopt.org to be an excellent and simple way to provide standard options and docs easily.

[ramanan]

You might be interested in bro pages then!

http://bropages.org/

[geon]

I like tldr: http://tldr-pages.github.io/

[jm547ster]

Is this real? I'm on mobile can't check it, had nice little chuckle with curl example

[mrspeaker]

Yes! For some reason I still always type `man whatever` when I need to do something with a tool... even though I'm just presented with 50 pages of gibberish that I scroll through for a few pages then go to Stack Overflow.

The problem I usually find is that man pages give equal importance to every possible flag - making really hard to figure out which elements you most likely will need to do common tasks.

[ktRolster]

Whoever answers your question on Stack Overflow likely got their information from a man page.

[baby]

I use bropages ( http://bropages.org/ ) most of the time, and use man if it doesn't have the entry.

[microcolonel]

The quality of manpages can vary significantly, however many of them are excellent. The Git manpages stand out; most of the system manpages for OpenBSD are excellent as well.

One other nice thing is integration with an editor. I view manpages in emacs, and can yank the snippets directly into my other buffers for extra convenience.

[beachstartup]

i use the curl and rsync man pages weekly, if not daily for a stretch, and they're great.

[gkya]

The quality of the medium is not determined by the quality of its content. GNU manpages especially are incredibly low quality (they have info(1) for extensive documentation), but not all man pages are GNU manpages. If you use man with shell job control (Ctrl-z, fg, bg), you can easily read multiple man pages simultaneously.

[Nullabillity]

At least man pages don't break your scrolling.

[taeric]

And, for myself, I couldn't disagree more. Man pages are very well done, since they are more often used for reference than they are for discovery.

Similarly, documentation seems to have apexed with the TeXbook. :(

[geggam]

What is your better solution ? Instead of being derogatory about a technology which works how about creating your ideal and seeing if the Internet likes it ?

[headShrinker]

It's a good ideal but it also helps to recognize the problem. Not everyone that recognizes the problem is apt or interested in offering a solution. Also I don't believe parent comment was intended to be derogatory

[aerovistae]

Indeed. When you do user testing and they tell you a certain component of your application is confusing or hard-to-use, do you castigate them for being derogatory and tell them to fix it?

[krirken]

If not derogatory, I have never found the "This is how ... was done in the 90s/80s/70s" sentiment to contribute much to a conversation.

[aerovistae]

I understand what you're saying but I think it goes without saying that we've started paying more attention to quality of user experience for software in the past twenty years.

If you genuinely disagree and believe the 90s were as ripe with quality tooling and documentation as 2016, well, that's a bit strange, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[spyrosg]

I don't know. I really like the moments where Alan Kay appears out of nowhere, tells where your idea squanders the potential of computers, points to 60's-80's prior art that did it better anyway, and disappears in a puff of smoke.

The last thing our discipline needs is us thinking we got it all and it just needs polishing.