Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What To Do About the Sorry State of FOSS Documentation?
First time accepted submitter TWX writes I've been out of computers as a serious home-hobby for many years and in returning I'm aghast at the state of documentation for Open Source projects. The software itself has changed significantly in the last decade, but the documentation has failed to keep pace; most of what I'm finding applies to versions long since passed or were the exact same documents from when I dropped-out of hobbyist computing years ago. Take Lightdm on Ubuntu 14.04 for example- its entire configuration file structure has been revamped, but none of the documentation for more specialized or advanced uses of Lightdm in previous versions of Ubuntu has been updated for this latest release. It's actually harder now to configure some features than it was a decade ago. TLDP is close to a decade out-of-date, fragmentation between distributions has grown to the point that answers from one distro won't readily apply to another, and web forums for even specific projects are full of questions without answers, or those that head off into completely unrelated discussion, or with snarky, "it's in the documentation, stupid!" responses. Where do you go for your FOSS documentation and self-help?
The one thing Linux really, really lacks, compared to the *BSDs is the quality of the documentation. Not even Google makes up for the deficiency.
learn how to use a program by reading the source code!
I jest, of course. It's not just open source projects that have this problem, though; plenty of commercial applications also have shit for documentation. The upside in open source being that you *can* read the source and build documentation from it, if you were so inclined.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
That is completely unreasonable. If I have to read the source code just to be able to understand how to use the program, I will just wind up using proprietary software with proper documentation.
I've never seen JavaDocs that add anything to the source. It's okay if you need a list of methods or parameters, but usage is lacking.
Documentation needs to have several *working* examples (not snippets) from a simple Hello World to more sophisticated but still commonly used. A single example that illustrates every imaginable feature and use case is rarely helpful.
The problem is most software is complex, and documentation is an attempt to simplify the work flow. But the documentation if complete would probably be just as large if not larger then the code, and just as complex to read.
What I find for good documentation is down in the FAQ, or a quick spot where you know a particular area is kinda clunky in the UI, or just a list of of the features you can use and what they do. Not a formal write up in a 1000 page book. But the appendix, and the list of tables is usually enough.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I am saddened to say that the lack of proper, structured documentation, combined with bad experience every time I asked a question on OFSS forums kept me away from OFSS in general (and Linux, more specifically). Every year I try again and I am seeing the same results.
I know I might ask questions perceived as "stupid" but everyone's been a newbie at some point in time. Maybe it's just my turn to be one. Thing is, once I get the correct, detailed answer I never ask the same question again but I almost never get the answer, just "RTFM" and "haha noob" with the obligatory variations.
Of course, I've been trying to ask very specific questions, I've provided detailed information on my issue and was very polite myself. Still was met with smug and bile.
In all fairness, creating documentation is something that almost nobody wants to do. I get that. However, politely answering a question shouldn't be that difficult.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
That sort of attitude is the problem.
Building the application and writing the code is half of the project. The other half is documenting it. Yes, you'll spend twice as much on the project, but that's counterbalanced by someone else picking up and improving it a lot faster.
Also, undocumented code is a half-assed job, no matter how well it performs.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
A huge amount of documentation for various projects like GNU groff, GNU nano, Vim, and others, have implicit assumptions that users are familiar with those tools' traditional Unix counterparts. 'man nano' for example, doesn't describe any of the keybindings for the editor, instead assuming that users already know pico. The groff documentation in places explicitly states that it only documents the difference between groff and Unix troff.
Linux has won. Most Linux users have never used a traditional Unix, and most never will.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I have found https://wiki.archlinux.org/, the Arch Linux Wiki to be the most useful single source of information taht is generalized enough to apply to most other distributions.
As an early adopter of Linux, I too found the existing documentation appalling and started writing better documentation, which led to co-authoring RedHat/Fedora Unleashed with Bill Ball.
My advice is to contribute to the documentation yourself since it appears that no one else, including the software authors, care much about it.
But the barriers to contributing are high. You may not only need to learn about the application, but you need to learn any number of arcane editing and versioning tools, and then convince someone in authority to accept and include your changes. It's really no different that contributing code to a project and for your average writer, that's a huge hassle and likely a big part of why more writers don;t contribute.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Ask Slashdot: What To Do About the Sorry State of All Software Documentation Everywhere?
I find being offended by me offensive.
You think it was bad then? Well, I'm not saying that it wasn't, but it has gotten a whole lot worse lately.
The neckbeards you speak of are now in their 50s and 60s. A lot of them have, I'm afraid to say, died. They didn't live the healthiest lives when young, and they have perished because of this. A lot of the others have been marginalized as we've seen the hipster tide sweep in.
At least the neckbeards had real experience. Most of them had gone to college, and a lot of them had graduate degrees and decades of industry experience. They may have been assholes at times, but at least they were competent. They wrote good code, even if they didn't always provide documentation.
The hipsters have none of this. Most of them are in their early 20s, if not younger. They have no real education. Their knowledge is extremely limited, but they don't realize this. This is why they think JS is a good programming language, for example. They have absolutely no idea about anything else. The software they write is typically total crap, and documentation is completely foreign to them.
At least the neckbeards could be depended upon to provide useful information about how their software worked. Maybe it'd take some fighting with them, but eventually the information would come out, and it would be correct. It's a different ballgame with hipsters. They don't know how the software works, even when they wrote it. When they claim to know how it works, they actually don't. So if you're trying to write documentation for their code, not only do you have to deal with shitty code (assuming you know how to), but you can't even rely on the developers themselves to know how it works, how to use it, or what it's even supposed to do.
As somebody who has contributed documentation for several neckbeard-run projects and several hipster-run projects, I would be more than happy to deal with the neckbeards any day. It isn't a good experience, but it isn't a total clusterfuck like it is when dealing with hipsters.
This is silly. I've been trying to use Autodesk Fusion 360 - it's most definitely a proprietary bit of software from a large developer.
The documentation is worse than awful; you'd be better off just reading the source.
And iOS vs Android? iOS is pain layered on suffering. Reading the source would be _so_ much better than depending on Apple.
Commercial != good doc.
"Incomplete Documentation
Open Source nerds don't have the discipline to write documentation because it's no fun. Writing new code is fun. Fixing bugs in old code is less fun. Writing documentation sucks. Which is why most open source software is buggy and features little to no documentation making it useless to everyone outside of the authors".
http://www.grumpynerd.com/?p=1...
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
fix it yourself.
How the hell is someone supposed to DOCUMENT something that they're trying to figure out how to make work?
Are you a black hole of utter cluelessness?
No clue will ever escape your infinite singularity of utter incomprehension?
Once a clue passes your event horizon it's never seen again?
Do you emit Hawking Clue Radiation?
MOTHERFUCKER, IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. Fuck you in your goddamn asshole you fucking arrogant fucking pricks.
Your documentation must have been epic.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I will just wind up using proprietary software with proper documentation.
Same here.
I love the idea of Open Source, community-driven projects, and I'm happy when they provide useful software to people for no cost, and I'm happy that there are people providing competition for the big name software companies.
I'm also a busy person. If I've got work to do or something important to finish personally, then realistically the cost of buying more polished commercial/proprietary software can often be justified instantly.
That might be because it has comprehensive documentation, but much the same applies to the usual FOSS weaknesses: ease of use, or compatibility with industry standards, convenient availability of professional consultancy and training, and so on.
(Of course, I am similarly sceptical about proprietary commercial software where the documentation or ease of use don't justify the high prices sometimes asked. This isn't about FOSS, it's about whether it's worth spending real money to get a much more practically useful product.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm a rather odd duck. I did a lot of coding in college and my first job (writing software for hospitals) but have since moved to system administration/design and have a degree in technical documentation. I've written books on Linux and have documentation up on the LDP, some of which is still in use. So I've seen all the sides.
Coders are too busy writing code and making changes to what they write to give time for accurate documentation to be written. The days of "read the code for documentation" are long gone when you have multiple layers of libraries and applications to go through to find what you're looking for. This kinda worked in the days when you could fit an entire Linux install on three floppies but now that you need a few GB there's no way a single human can keep track of it all. Documentation takes time to write and get right. In the age of using github as a distribution and code changes between today and tomorrow, the documentation is suddenly invalid before it's written. Even then, it requires a lot of stupid questions asked by the documentation staff to coders who think they have better things to do.
As for TLDP there was a bunch of problems. Using DocBook was brilliant, but the toolsets were terrible to work with and difficult for people who never used SGML or XML. Linuxdoc was easier to use but really wasn't the way to go long term, especially since the tools were Linux-only and meant the tools were of limited use. Once Wikis took over online there wasn't enough enthusiasm in TLDP to convert and lead the charge.
I write code as a hobby and *gasp* I thoroughly document it, and in all fairness I don't do it for my customers (I have none) but for myself. I realized, couple decades ago, that if I don't comment my code it's a lot more difficult for me to remember what I did months or years later.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Where do you go for your FOSS documentation and self-help?
Documenting code is different than documenting an interface. As an end user I honestly I don't bother with FOSS documentation for the most part because it's generally so bad. (Sadly non-FOSS software is too seldom much better even when it should be) While there are times when I have to dig into whatever is available, I generally don't bother with any application (FOSS or not) that I need to consult the documentation to figure out unless I absolutely have no alternative. It's sort of a quick and dirty way of sorting out what I want to use since 99% of what I do does not require deep magic. If I have to get out the manual then chances are that the application is poorly designed and will most likely cost me more time than some alternative. There are exceptions of course but it's not a bad first pass filter.
As a random example it's why I can't be bothered with EMACS despite the fact that it's an absurdly capable piece of software. (I don't like vi either so spare everyone the holy war) If I have to consult a manual to do even the most basic things in the application then it isn't worth my time. (Ctrl-x Ctrl-c to quit? Seriously?!? No thanks) I don't want to memorize a random list of key shortcuts especially for an application I'm just starting to use. Installation routines should take care of all but the most arcane issues. Applications should never require magic keystroke combinations or buried options for common tasks. Minimalism is fine but not when it hides so much that I can't immediately discern how to do a task (I'm looking at you Apple). If I need a tooltip to figure out what something does then it is badly designed. If I have to pull up a help screen (press F1 etc) then it is really badly designed. If I have to look at a man page or consult a third party reference then it is probably completely broken.
I think good documentation is important but it should never be a substitute for a well designed interface. Furthermore documentation for users (code is different) should primarily serve two purposes. 1) To get people up to speed on basic tasks with an unfamiliar application and 2) To document weird corner cases and how to deal with them. 99% of what any application does should not require special documentation. If it does then it needs to fixed until it is in a state where it no longer needs the documentation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To blow my own tiny trumpet for a moment, I've written and updated a manual to go with: http://sourceforge.net/project... for each release.
However, it isn't terrific AND I worked as a technical author for a number of years, doing mainframe software manuals. This is my main point, good manuals [mine is not] are hard and probably require equivalent effort to the software itself. The other big obstacle is that in, for example, mainframe world there is formal review process, formalised customer feedback, errata etc. etc. Also, manuals are planned as a 'set' installation, operation, troubleshooting, API etc.
I don't know a lot of my customers and can only correct things that appear in the Google group. In my case, since it's a niche. there's not very much.
Actually there's an opportunity here as well, in that non-code people could also participate in their favourite projects by writing guides. Indeed sometimes they do, but not often enough and they're fragmentary.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
That is completely unreasonable. If I have to read the source code just to be able to understand how to use the program, I will just wind up using proprietary software with proper documentation.
On the other hand, I've noticed a steady decline in documentation for commercial software too. Manuals have gone from the thick reference books I remember from 20 years ago to little "quick start" books if you're lucky. More frequently no documentation at all.
Self documentation is going downhill too - there seems to be a trend to removing UI hints such as the short cut keys from menus, so where you would discover stuff from clicking around in the UI and seeing it, now it frequently seems that you'll never figure this stuff out without googling for an answer.
Error messages, too, have disappeared - back in the day you used to get a descriptive error that told you what broke. Ok, so the non-techies probably didn't understand them but at least they could ask a techie. Over the past few years, error messages have been replaced with generic "something broke" errors that give no one any hints as to what went wrong. Increasingly (especially on Android and iOS) apps don't display an error at all - if something breaks they often just plain don't work and its very difficult to figure out why.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Then I hire him, after all writing code I accidentally use in my commercial product, and feeling being hold hostage because in a corner area it does not work, is his business model :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If someone comes along and gives you a free hamburger, you don't complain that they didn't bring fries and a drink.
But if the hamburger tastes bad and you are not sure what's in it,. you might want to ask. And if you ask and are given an answer like "hey it's free, eat it or GTFO" it doesn't make the giver less of an asshole.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Switch all of the info docs back to man pages. man pages are neatly organized and have all of the info in a handy grep-able format. info help pages are as disorganized as 1990's websites with their random hyperlinking. Something GNU got waaay wrong.
On the other hand, I've noticed a steady decline in documentation for commercial software too.
Many of them seem to be going the route of "community-driven" documentation; i.e., dropping the cost of the manuals (and everything related, such as tech writers, printing, and so on), and shifting the burden of educating new users to more experienced ones. This is more or less how most FOSS projects have been documented for years, though out of necessity rather than a desire to cut yet another corner.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
MOTHERFUCKER, IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. Fuck you in your goddamn asshole you fucking arrogant fucking pricks...The fact of the matter is the majority of programmers are assholes that have no business operating in normal society. Lock them in the fucking closet and let them read the fucking source until they jizz all over their crusty beards while fantasizing about Stallman's brown pucker.
Just a wild guess here, but hear me out: Is there any chance that your interpersonal skills could have contributed to the lack of communication?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
... and this is why the term "software engineer" is a bit of a misnomer.
Could you imagine if, say, aerospace engineers didn't document their work? Automotive engineers? I can hear the shop talk now:
"Hey, Jim, what's the recommended torque for head bolts on an '09 Madza 3?"
"What's the manual say?"
"Nothing, they didn't document that part."
Ergo, coders who fail to document are anything but engineers, cocky attitudes aside.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think several here have different expectations of what constitutes "good documentation". Being a Linux sysadmin, I work in FOSS day in, day out, and documentation is always available and clear.
Without knowing, you've hit the nail with the hammer.
.pdf document with all possible options.
Here is why FOSS docs are so nice to you, but proprietary ones are not: audience analysis.
The people who create FOSS documentation are often either the developers themselves, or very early adopters who spend a lot of time with the developers. They have a technical mindset, and will write documentation in that way. You have a very technical mindset, and like me, will probably prefer a well-commented configuration example over a nicely formatted
In large enterprises, things are different. That's where the professional technical writers come in (yes, that's a full-time job). These folks will come up with a target audience, secondary audience, initial outline for the documentation and (in their minds) well-written content and examples. Since this gets reviewed many times by people who all have an ego telling them that they must make at least some changes in order to show productivity to their bosses, the documentation ends up being a piece of crap. It may be correct, but it usually is a piece of crap. For example, let's take any routing vendor's documentation. You are looking to configure something as simple as an L3VPN. The easiest way to do this is by getting an example configuration and just change some IP addresses to match your own network, right? Well, the "professionals" think not. They will come up with this:
Step 1: configure an IGP. For more information on how to configure an IGP, see chapter 12, section 3.
Step 2: enable the appropriate interfaces for MPLS. For more information on how to enable interfaces for MPLS, see chapter 2, section 1.
Step 3: create an LSP between the two PE nodes. For more information an how to configure LSPs, see chapter 2, section 10.
Step 4: enable a signaling protocol such as BGP or LDP. For more information on how to configure BGP as an L3VPN signaling protocol, see chapter 10, section 9. For more information on how to configure (targeted) LDP as your L3VPN signaling protocol, see chapter 7, section 1.
Step 5: configure the route-target: set route-target 12345:1. For more information on route-target configuration, see chapter 8, section 2.
Step 6: configure the route-distinguisher: set route-distinguisher 12345:100. For more information on route-distinguisher configuration, see chapter 8, section 3.
And that, my friend, is why commercial documentation sucks a monkey's ass.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I think Unix (not just BSD, but I include BSD-based SunOS 4.x) documentation from the mid 90's was the best and easiest to follow.
The main thing I miss from that era is that practically everything I wanted to know could be looked up in man pages; and if not on that first man page I tried, in a meaningful see-also page.
These days, seems most software (not just Linux, but for any platform) is scattered amongst HTML-urls that point to long-gone former websites, and youtube tutorial videos.
Now you might say that much of today's software is too complex to describe in a man page --- but IMHO - that's the bigger problem. If people write complex monolithic bloat, writing pretty documentation for it is the least of our problems.
First, I wanted to link to This blog post by Steve Losh on writing documentation. I think offers some good metaphors as to why 'reading the source', even 'self documenting' source, is insufficient, though of course not everyone will agree with his philosophy.
Second, I wanted to say on the projects that I work on as a systems engineer doing new product development (as in this, not the information technology use of the term) documentation is perpetually threatened. And we usually work on comparatively well funded, non-FOSS programs. Documentation is timing consuming and expensive, and sometimes it is even customer direction to place it at a lower priority than new development. Though inevitably it makes things harder later, sometimes that is o.k. if it works better with the cash flow (saving money now only to pay more later can work if you expect to have more money later). Unfortunately FOSS software projects don't necessarily have people promising a ton of money for the documentation.
Yup, I'm convinced JavaDocs are the worst thing to happen to documentation in a long time. They actively discourage good documentation.
There is no good way to have API docs alongside meaningful documentation (with examples, diagrams, longer blocks of prose) without ramming everything into your codebase.
Look at Sphinx (Python's standard for docs - although supports other languages) - it allows you to curate custom docs, and then add in your API documentation from your code. Your code keeps it's core documentation for 'this is how you use this class/function', while your docs actually explain how the system fits together, how everything works.
JavaDocs are like a testing suite that only allows you to do unit tests - it makes you think in terms of the smallest unit, so you never test the whole. Sure, a foo may be passed into the bar, but what does that really mean? JavaDocs are essentially no more than browsing the code with folding enabled.
Good documentation is about all the stuff that *isn't* represented by your code. JavaDocs focus only on what is.
In general, Python is the best example - the documentation is execellent, and tools like DocTests allow you to ensure your documentation is up to date and accurate.
I haven't generally found that to be the case at all. At least not with enterprise stuff. Generally the company wants you to buy support contracts and training from them so they make operation as obscure as possible. One almost universal technique used to build an internal vernacular for the proprietary product, naming elements and configuration blocks using invented product specific labels instead of using standard industry terms. This is great because someone who is perfectly competent can't make heads or tails of your documentation until they've learned the vernacular you use.
Good documentation in my experience is documentation that any competent programmer/engineer/user can pick up and immediately use without ever having seen your stuff before.
Setting up a resource like that doesn't mean that it's filled out in a useful way, and it's not.
I wouldn't say that today's software is too complex for man pages but instead man pages have never really been ideal for the tasks for which they're used. Software has always been complex. Man pages might have been appropriate for some short window of time but technology quickly left them behind.
Man pages do not have an effective system of hyperlinking, indexing, or even searching. They were meant to be read on a teletype or printed on paper. For documentation any more complex than instructions on how to use console commands they are completely inadequate. Even for looking up instructions on console commands they're less than adequate because there's no sort of authoritative hierarchy, if you don't look up the exact right term man won't point you to the correct documentation (or best guesses).
Besides man being inadequate it is difficult to write proper man pages. This is just adding insult to injury as it makes it less likely that developers will write even bad documentation.
Of existing documentation systems I'd most like to see GNU Info become the primary documentation mechanism for FOSS. It solves most of man's problems without introducing its own new ones. Even GNU Info isn't perfect and could use some improvements.
I don't disagree with the idea that FOSS desperately needs some reliable offline documentation. This idea might require that FOSS distributions themselves maintain their own documentation. The Arch wiki for instance is fantastic, it's some of the best Linux/Unix documentation around. While the Wiki is great it would be really nice to see this information turned into texinfo/manpage/whatever files so everyone could have good references and not need access to the internet.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.