Re: Old gconf keys (was: Tab width)

on Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:07:50PM -0500, Andrew Conkling ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 07:02 -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >     $ man gconftool
> >     No manual entry for gconftool
> > 
> > Y'know, I *love* how GNOME goes _miles_ out of its way to smooth the
> > waters with us old-time farts who expect to find freakin' *man pages* in
> > our man pages.
> > 
> > Bug #108142, filed 09 Aug 2001.  Think we might have a manpage by 2009?
> 
> man gconftool-2
> man gconf-editor:
> SEE ALSO
>        gconfd-2(1), gconftool-2(1)
> 
> Maybe old-time farts don't try very hard?

It's more about Debian Policy (which I realize is neither all of
GNU/Linux, nor GNOME specifically, but it remains a damned good idea):

    12.1. Manual pages
    ------------------

    <...>

     Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual
     page included in the same package.  It is suggested that all
     configuration files also have a manual page included as well.  Manual
     pages for protocols and other auxiliary things are optional.

Note that that's *each* program.  File formats and even device files
aren't a bad idea either (see the BSDs for truly impressive
implementations).

Why is this so important?  Here's a scenario:

    $ ps aux | less
    # Hrm.... What's 'foo'?
    $ man <foo>
    # Ah, <foo> is <stuff>.

Incidentally, my system's running ~360-380 processes right now (typical
load -- I run it hard).  Which means if I really _do_ want to track down
what's what, being able to run 'man' on an arbitrary executable is
really, really useful.  Factor in other usefulness such as being able to
use /proc to find out exactly what executable is running, via 'ls -l
/proc/<pid>/exe'. 

A system where this isn't possible is, um, legacy MS Windows.  Where
keeping track of what's running is becoming an increasingly, um,
necessary proposition.

Not being typically versed in the legacy MS Windows way of doing things,
I found myself reduced to the expediant of Googling executable names and
taking a wild-ass stab in the dark as to whether or not they were or
weren't malicious.  Which I thought was a pretty damned poor expedient.

Turns out that's what the $50/15m hired gun was doing too.


Manpages are _more_ than just a useful tool.  They're part of the
security profile.  And if you want admins to start taking your
project(s) seriously, you're going to make a real effort to make
manpages available to them.  Particularly for commandline, remotely
accessible, administration, documentation, recovery, and repair tools.


So yes, the fact that GNOME's got multiple facilities with
years'-standing requests for manpages is yet another major red flag.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[email protected]>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
    will stop telling the truth about them.
    - Adlai Stevenson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCQ4d/efG8443k044RAgQOAJ9NrHn1s2Zy/gpJswpcCCphpwXh0gCfdIb4
ztM0Z5/4ki+LYSiEcpwEyYg=
=cjRp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----