This article only convinces me that the OpenBSD documentation is bad, for three reasons. First, there are seven listed sources for documentation. Seven places

This article only convinces me that the OpenBSD documentation is bad, for three reasons. First, there are seven listed sources for documentation. Seven places I might have to look through to get the answers I need. I cannot imagine a reason to have more than two - "static" documentation (the four kinds of docs in the Divio documentation system) and release notes. Second, there's no mention of awareness of the distinction between the four kinds of documentation (https://documentation.divio.com/ https://documentation.divio.com/), and lots of discussion on the implementation details of man pages but nothing on the actual content. Man pages are pretty well-known for being decent references, but often lacking how-to guides and explanation, and having terrible/nonexistent tutorial information. This makes me think that the author is confusing "documentation" with "reference manuals". Third, the lack of a community wiki is explicitly counted as a feature. It's not. Users need a place where they can collaborate with other users, and quickly write down their observations and hacks and problems while they're trying to get their job done - they don't have time to start a lengthy conversation with the mailing list developers or go through an involved process for patching the official documentation. Source: me, a user who has to work in a corporate environment and whose job is not working on OpenBSD, as well as many of my co-workers who often don't even take a few minutes to edit the wiki when they find a problem or fix.