I don't mean that man itself isn't functional, I mean the way most man pages are written isn't clear enough to communicate how to use the programs they refer to.
I'd include the man page for man in that, and I'd encourage anyone else to look at it from the eyes of someone who can follow written instructions and ask "How does this manual/help file compare to others I have read?".
So, for example, in the examples, it says:
man -a intro
Display, in succession, all of the available intro manual pages contained within the manual. It is possible to quit between successive displays or skip any of them.
Those two lines are the only place within man's man page (at least the one you get from man man) that use the string "intro". What is an intro in this context? Guess you got to run it to find out.
What is -a for? About 200+ lines down there is a two sentence explanation.
The first sentence tells you how man normally behaves, saying: "By default, man will exit after displaying the most suitable manual page it finds." This sentence is unclear ("When does man exit after displaying the most suitable manual page it finds? When I run man ls I see the manual for ls on my screen until I press 'q' to 'quit' out of it.") and not immediately connected to the purpose of the flag/option.
The second sentence says: "Using this option forces man to display all the manual pages with names that match the search criteria." This is a lot clearer, and my only complaint about it can be that it's not the first sentence in the explanation.
Replacing clip art, generic filler from Getty images, and other hand-crafted slop with machine-made slop for things like slideshows, YouTube thumbnails, and other applications where the image isn't meant to convey something actually existing from the primary content, that I think is fine.
Of course it should be based on free software (such as AGPL) and use only freely provided or public domain inputs.
Of course it shouldn't be used to misrepresent its outputs as produced by, authorized, or of people that it is not.
But what we have right now is an another sort of enclosure of the cultural commons, blended with plagerism-by-another-name. If there are already terms for this sort of misappropriation, I can't think of them right now.
Tbf, most man files are not easy to understand.
Between man, tldr, ArchWiki, and an occasional O'Reilly book I can usually get things done, but documentation on Linux still has a lot of room for improvement.
I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that we should probably be more concerned with how the company functions than the personal character of the CEO .
Sam Walton was a hardworking, amiable, humble man by all accounts. And even when he was alive Walmart the company was cutting throats.
At the same time, if a CEO deeply ingrains himself in the political process, I can probably take a pass on his products even if they are marginally better. So these days Musk is doing so much damage to the functioning of the US government that even if Teslas were good I wouldn't buy one.
The Chikfila guy on the other hand was just donating to a few discriminatory "Christian" charities last I checked but stopped trying to change policy, so...as fast food shops go it's actually not too bad even if I don't prefer to eat there.
Starbucks...evil CEO, but preemptively boycotting before the organized shops strike doesn't help the workers.
Brave...has had too many fuckups for my taste. On the rare occasion that I need a privacy focused Chromium-based browser I just use Chromium with uBlock Origin for the one website I need to visit.
I don't like the either/or, but I think Elon is an easier target in the Anglosphere. But the US government, of which Elon is a part, has been enabling authoritarian douchebags, and even if this act is consistent with the company's pragmatic compliance choices, it also aligns with the US administration's general tendency. And Elon has in other cases shown that his commitment to free speech is pretty weak if it's speech that he doesn't like.
A testament to the shit development standards at MS. An OS literally should not in a million years be this resource inefficient, especially out of the box.
Why the fuck should anybody give this guy money to help him avoid the inevitable consequences of the policy regime that he voted in and still supports?
I don't think you get what I mean.
I don't mean that man itself isn't functional, I mean the way most man pages are written isn't clear enough to communicate how to use the programs they refer to.
I'd include the man page for man in that, and I'd encourage anyone else to look at it from the eyes of someone who can follow written instructions and ask "How does this manual/help file compare to others I have read?".
So, for example, in the examples, it says:
man -a intro Display, in succession, all of the available intro manual pages contained within the manual. It is possible to quit between successive displays or skip any of them.
Those two lines are the only place within man's man page (at least the one you get from man man) that use the string "intro". What is an intro in this context? Guess you got to run it to find out.
What is -a for? About 200+ lines down there is a two sentence explanation.
The first sentence tells you how man normally behaves, saying: "By default, man will exit after displaying the most suitable manual page it finds." This sentence is unclear ("When does man exit after displaying the most suitable manual page it finds? When I run man ls I see the manual for ls on my screen until I press 'q' to 'quit' out of it.") and not immediately connected to the purpose of the flag/option.
The second sentence says: "Using this option forces man to display all the manual pages with names that match the search criteria." This is a lot clearer, and my only complaint about it can be that it's not the first sentence in the explanation.