In 2009, our development team lost a whole 10 hours to a degraded Linux mdadm RAID1 that wouldn't rebuild due to an obscure error after a digger severed our power and internet connection. No internet access as power came up first so no access to online help. mdadm is buggy. Documentation sucks. Error messages suck. Only recourse was a full restore from tape which took a long time. This was the last straw after over a decade of dealing with this crap from network dropouts, laziness, half-arsed features, distro wars, politics and churn.

Some previous Unix experience in the late 1990s with OpenBSD on an old SparcStation 5 (the only thing that would run on that machine nicely) jumped into my mind on the way home. It had that warm, fuzzy, well-engineered, well-documented feeling about it, like an old HP RPN calculator. Got home, downloaded it and installed it on my laptop, replacing Ubuntu.

4 years down the line: one happy person with the same laptop running 5.4 still with that warm, fuzzy, well-engineered, well-documented feeling.

Not once has it let me down. Not for a minute in the 4000+ hours I've been using it. It just works.

When I got thrown in the deep end with Solaris, many years ago, I'd read the Solaris man page for the options, but first I'd read the OpenBSD man page to work out what the hell the command was for and why.

I don't know if this is common practice anymore...I don't remember the last time I saw a defective man page like this, but I still remember it with great anger. I love GNU, but I hate the kind of condescension it takes to try to force someone to use a different tool because you believe it to be superior to the standard tool (when it's really not; I find info pages to be obtuse to create, and difficult to read).

The problem lies when you want to find something 1% of the time, and it's here that man pages become sprawling unindexed messes. For example, take a look at the man pages for perl or zsh: you'll have no chance finding anything, as those programs are so large that they need a wealth of documentation to go into them. At the same time, the info page for ls contains the things you rarely need to see such as exactly how things are sorted or the minute details of timestamp formatting. If this were all in the man page, you'd complain that you couldn't find anything in it.

Now I no longer have anger management issues

But we have other hypertext formats available. It'd be better if GNU started using some format that everybody already usees and knows how to write.

If you need a complex manual for a complex program, something is wrong.

I mean, the project wants to create an operating system that looks like UNIX, acts like UNIX, smells like UNIX, but from scratch with appropriate license that allows usage and access to source to anyone - so that the project doesn't get into legal trouble from whoever actually owns UNIX?

So drunk Stallman in 1981 says: "hik, let's call this, hik operhikating system GNU, hik, because it's not UNIX hik, but it sure looks like one, hik, but it's not, hik, but it kinda is hik, but it's not theirs hik it's everyone's hik". That's how I like to imagine it happened.

1: My go-to example was always ifconfig, but linux's manpage for ip(8) really isn't that bad, as is actually the linux equivalent. Quality probably varies quite a bit based on the package that supplies the utility though, while OpenBSD's quality is fairly universal.

Any bug numbers? I'm not seeing that on Debian Wheezy or CentOS.

But I have just ordered a CD set to try this OpenBSD to see what all the fuss is about and to learn something.