3 ms·

bash actually has a pretty good man page, too. Not quite OpenBSD quality, but far superior to most GNU man pages ("The actual documentation is maintained as a T

bash actually has a pretty good man page, too. Not quite OpenBSD quality, but far superior to most GNU man pages ("The actual documentation is maintained as a TeXinfo manual. If the `info` command is properly installed, as it should be on any installation of the GNU operating system (of which Linux is only a very small and insignificant part), then the real documentation is available via the following command: `info`. Otherwise, you're stuck with this sorry excuse of a man page."). I pretty much learned bash from the man page (and OpenBSD's ksh(1), which has enough overlap with bash to be mostly applicable), enough to get by, at first, and getting more and more advanced by checking man recurrently as I encountered problems that demanded solutions beyond my skills.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Oh, gods, the smug info message. That, more than anything anyone ever said or did, gave me negative feelings about GNU. I mean, I still love GNU for the good it's done in the world, but that broken-by-design man page for every GNU project is hateful and nearly undoes all of my good feelings about GNU. Thankfully, I don't see that message anymore. I'm not sure if GNU fixed it, or if downstream distros fixed it, but sometime several years ago I stopped experiencing those moments of info rage, and man pages actually started working correctly. And, you're right. The bash docs are really good. bash, in general, is such a well-managed Free software project; I have such warm fuzzy feelings about it. bash just quietly gets better every couple of years without me ever thinking about it or realizing that it's gotten better. bash-completion is lovely, and when it's not present I feel ragey (not info level of rage, but still it sucks not having completion). It's just such a solid workhorse. And, it even works well on Windows (both the WSL version and the standalone git or Cygwin versions). It's one of those projects that I never think about because it always Just Works. I can't remember the last time I ran into a bash bug; it has to have been over a decade ago (and I do quite a bit of shell scripting, though I mostly have to code to POSIX rather than bash, because of Ubuntu).
- groovy2shoes 10y ago
  I'm willing to bet that Debian fleshes out the man pages. At the very least, they tend to write man pages for software that doesn't have them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same for GNU software.

SwellJoe 10y ago

Oh, gods, the smug info message. That, more than anything anyone ever said or did, gave me negative feelings about GNU. I mean, I still love GNU for the good it's done in the world, but that broken-by-design man page for every GNU project is hateful and nearly undoes all of my good feelings about GNU. Thankfully, I don't see that message anymore. I'm not sure if GNU fixed it, or if downstream distros fixed it, but sometime several years ago I stopped experiencing those moments of info rage, and man pages actually started working correctly. And, you're right. The bash docs are really good. bash, in general, is such a well-managed Free software project; I have such warm fuzzy feelings about it. bash just quietly gets better every couple of years without me ever thinking about it or realizing that it's gotten better. bash-completion is lovely, and when it's not present I feel ragey (not info level of rage, but still it sucks not having completion). It's just such a solid workhorse. And, it even works well on Windows (both the WSL version and the standalone git or Cygwin versions). It's one of those projects that I never think about because it always Just Works. I can't remember the last time I ran into a bash bug; it has to have been over a decade ago (and I do quite a bit of shell scripting, though I mostly have to code to POSIX rather than bash, because of Ubuntu).

groovy2shoes 10y ago
I'm willing to bet that Debian fleshes out the man pages. At the very least, they tend to write man pages for software that doesn't have them, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same for GNU software.