I've found the Arch wiki to be a great documentation source when it comes to most Linux tooling. It's detailed, and formatted in a way that is easy to read. I typically recommend the wiki for people when they want more information about a certain tool of Linux, because of its detail.
I've used Arch for several years, and in general, I agree with you.
However, in many cases its documentation is great for giving you basic directives how to do common tasks and troubleshooting esoteric problems, but doesn't give you any deep understanding of any tool, or its interactions with the rest of the system.
The common pattern I've noticed is:
<TOOL>
<TOOL> is a tool for doing blah blah...
If you want to do <X> with <TOOL>, run this command:
<COMMAND>
If you want to do <Y>, run this command:
<COMMAND>
[...]
While it's great for getting things done, sometimes not being aware of the side-effects of commands and just running them blindly can get you in trouble.
Of course, if you're a user of Arch Linux, it is expected that you know what you're doing, or at least are willing to read the manual. But reading the manuals individually doesn't give you a high-level understanding of how things fit together. I think Arch Wiki pages could bring a lot of value by providing more high-level perspective.
I think the focus on examples and common configs is quite good.
As I see it, properly understanding the design of the tool should be documentation provided by the tool itself, since that keeps it in sync with changes.
I do think what would be useful is 1 article explaining the different bits of how Linux fits together (or just point to articles). I think something explaining the how the various composition points (e.g. filesystems, boot loaders,daemons and periodic jobs etc.) fit together would be quite useful.
Never used Arch but since they show up often in search results, I've learned they have relatively good articles.
I think I learned how to run systemd-nspawn from there as there weren't much concentrated document on that.
And most important , it's always to the point,not some bloated website with half of copy pasta with decade old tutorials ,and plus point arch wiki always have great references in footnotes ,for eg original kernel docs
5 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 19.0 ms ] threadHowever, in many cases its documentation is great for giving you basic directives how to do common tasks and troubleshooting esoteric problems, but doesn't give you any deep understanding of any tool, or its interactions with the rest of the system.
The common pattern I've noticed is:
While it's great for getting things done, sometimes not being aware of the side-effects of commands and just running them blindly can get you in trouble.Of course, if you're a user of Arch Linux, it is expected that you know what you're doing, or at least are willing to read the manual. But reading the manuals individually doesn't give you a high-level understanding of how things fit together. I think Arch Wiki pages could bring a lot of value by providing more high-level perspective.
As I see it, properly understanding the design of the tool should be documentation provided by the tool itself, since that keeps it in sync with changes.
I do think what would be useful is 1 article explaining the different bits of how Linux fits together (or just point to articles). I think something explaining the how the various composition points (e.g. filesystems, boot loaders,daemons and periodic jobs etc.) fit together would be quite useful.