I’ve got to confess, I have for years been guilty if not reading the documentation. I simply go with the flow and hope it works…
But not anymore! And why the change you may ask? We’ll, I’m reading the f…ing documentation on Rocky linux and I’m just blown away from the amount of great information!
If you’ve been guilty of not reading the documentation, let me me know what changed it for you
If you’re not reading the documentation, this is your time to confess!
You must log in or register to comment.
I volunteer as developer for a decade old open source project. A sizable amount of my contribution is just cooking up decent documentation or re-writting old doc from the original module authors written close to a decade ago because it failed me information wise when I needed it. Programmers as it turns out are very ‘eh, the code should explain itself to anyone with enough brains to look at it’ type of people so lost in the sauce of being hyperfluent tech nerds instantly understanding all variables, functions, parameters, and syntax at very first glance at source code, that they forgot the need for re-translation into regular human speak for people of varying intelligence/skill levels who can barely navigate the command line.
I worked next to a technical writer for Unix; the Unix. One of the things we were known for, actually, was the amazing documentation. This guy and both teams of writers (that many) maintained the doc as their entire job. It was written well, it was spell-checked, it was accurate, it was accessible. If you installed the machine, it was on http://localhost/doc or so.
Almost all tech writers were turfed after Y2K. They cost money and didn’t earn directly.
If you notice a lack of good docco like you notice a lack of mentoring in code dev (I see you, Systemd), then we know how we got to this stage.
If you become CEO, just keep that in mind.
As a technical writer, I always get a bit giddy when someone shows appreciation for good docs haha Thanks for sharing!
I have found the docs the best place to start with anything, but have found that some don’t know how to write good documentation.
Also man pages and the tools own help -? Or -h
If you run something that has pants docs, you could always see if there is a way to help update it
“F* you, I won’t read what you tell me!”
- Rage Against The Manual
so rally round your PC… with a pocket KVM
If documentation is written in a readable and confluent way, RTFM isn’t such a big deal. The issue comes with overly draconian and non-confluent documentation.
There is a way with chmod in bash to change files and folders with files getting no execute bit and folder do (rwX instead of rwx). It’s in the man pages but good luck finding it via Google. Stackoverflow just suggests using find over and over again.
That did it for me.
I thought you wrote confluence and wanted to grab my pitchfork.
Confluent?
Flowing/coming together.
I think what they are referring to are docs where pieces are explained individually, but not in a consistent or cohesive way, obfuscating use.
You’re absolutely right
I find that the docs usually consist of a quick start guide covering some ultra tight scenario that doesn’t apply to most people, and reference material that’s just some total brain dump of every possible command without any kind of context.
It’s weird that Linux certification requires rote-memorization of commands. The only people who make any effort to memorize commands are newbies and people studding for exams. You will always have access to bash history, man, and --help, even from an offline machine.
Every command I’ve memorized is simply the natural process of repetition. Is that your experience?
Yes. But also, despite having done it literally thousands of times, I still can’t tell you which way round to put the target and the link name for a softlink on the first go.
My first guess is always
ln -s $NAME $TARGETNo amount of repetition will fix this.
What about substitution in your mind.
My way is probably not going to help but it might.
I see ln -s in my mind as the word link. And the sentence in my head is ‘link THIS HERE’ where ‘this’ is the source and ‘here’ is the target
My trick to remember:
You can link to a target without giving a name to the link. ln will use the basename of the target file then. You can’t create a link without a target, so target has to go first since it’s not optional. Did it for me
I used to have that problem with ln until I realized it’s essentially the same ordering as cp: source, then destination. The source being the existing file that you’re linking to, and the destination being the link that you’re creating
Are you trying to say I’m not a newbie with over 20 years of experience?
I also don’t RTFM
I would say that I RTFM about 75% of the times (give or take). Though I only do it to see if I can find something other than what I intended to use the software or hardware for.
Man pages tend to assume a lot and overload the user with information.
Forums are full of “duh, haven’t you read the man pages, idiot?” kinds of people.
Web searches are full of AI/garbage (same thing) articles that focus on distros/programs that are either horrendously inaccurate, out of date, or simply don’t exist anymore.
Therefore, I utilize the
tldrman pages, and use extremely specific terms for web searches.Man can be searched as well, if you use less or grep a lot the same keys work.
Use / to search
Yes, I am painfully aware. Unfortunately, this doesn’t actually help.
Oh thank hell it’s not just me. Every so often I retry the man command only to get frustrated having to flip through six walls of text via keyboard for something a 20 second Internet search would have easily refreshed my memory on.
FYI
Use / to search the man page, it’s basically less. Been doing that for years, as some man pages are the length of the great wall of China.
Bingo.
And even then it’s difficult to find shit, like for instance, finding the working directory for
crontabwhen run as root. This answer on Stack Exchange is the embodiment of my second example in the other comment. The answers go into great detail, yet still don’t answer the question in any reasonable capacity for a “standard user” like myself.Oh it is certainly not just you, I am sometimes confused reading them even for commands I have used for years and I know what flag I am looking for but don’t remember the exact syntax or something hah! I am glad they are there but they are definitely not a complete guide to any command, especially built-ins.
Interestingly, this is something AI has been very useful for to me, less searching because I can describe the outcome I want and it figures out what I am talking about generally.
Depends on what I am doing. Walky Talky? Toaster? Dish washer? … Who needs a manual for that?
FID detector? I need to know several things before turning it on. New Mainboard? Why is the WoL setting behind wake on PCIe?
Well, I’ve had a job where most coms were through a walky talky and somehow people didn’t understand they had to think - push - talk 😅
Funny how that’s the case for most people 🤣
i stopped reading most docs after like 95 unless they are rfc or reference and i had a memory that was stellar
now, i read all of them over and over and over because i got a tbi from electroshock “therapy” and i am working with shitty autobiographical memories and cant get to the details. so i read, keep reading, and make sure all the mans are at hand along with my references. now i get frustrated and wanna die but i still get it done but im always like yeah uh no
Oh it happens to the best of us. I was working on a simple cron the other day with the cron string that would insert the cron into my cron config something like ‘echo’ and the normal string you’d recognize, and ended with a ‘-’. I wasn’t paying attention and issued the command which did insert itself into the cron config, but in a manner in which I didn’t want. It replaced the whole cron file with that one string. #$@^$$ Luckily I have a cron to back up the crontabs.
well I’d read the documentation if websearch wasn’t so shoddy that I could find it in the first place /s
I mostly try to read the docs, but sadly good documentation is pretty rare.
I prefer to raw dog it first, break it, then tuck me dick and read the paper like the real alpha male
I’m kind of that way. I will browse documentation, get a good idea as to what has to happen, then I raw dog it. Then, after many failed attempts, I go read the documentation. I agree with twinnie@feddit.uk tho, a ton of documentation either assumes you are a certified, dyed in the wool, sysadmin veteran with a wall of certs, or it’s just too sparse for me to put together.
I have a theory: information is best remembered if it is acquired solving a problem.
Play with the new tech, hit a roadblock, read and learn. That way you are motivated, know why you are reading the stuff and also only learn the stuff that isn’t intuitive.
Depending on experience many things are just like something you already know and easy to learn/remember, others are not. Don’t waste your time learning the first.
On the other hand, put me into a room with a teacher, who tries to teache me specifics about a tech I don’t care about and I will promise you, I will learn nothing. Even worse, I will start to hate that tech.
