This does not disprove the point the citation made; namely, that the Unix man page structure is unsuitable for many things since its structure tends to make people write manuals badly, and there is no place for the kind of introductions and tutorials that good manuals should contain. On the contrary, the man page format lends itself to very strict and terse reference documentation, which is not what I would call a “manual”, as such.
Someone should perhaps do a study of which of the two formats seem to generate the better documentation.
> The bit that pisses me off is: man awk (see info awk instead). I think they fixed that but it was a pain in the butt for years. Is it in man or is it in info?
The official GNU system documentation is in Info. Now, the GNU system is meant to be compatible with Unix, and Unix uses man pages. And since many GNU tools were (and are) not actually developed to be used in the GNU system as such, but instead find their major use and development as parts of various Unix variants, it follows that most of them have Unix have man pages too. Since writing documentation is work, and writing duplicated documentation is even more work, the man pages for GNU tools are often overly terse, incomplete and/or out of date compared to the Info documentation, which is the official documentation. Some well-known exceptions exist, notably GNU Bash does not have any Info documentation, but instead has an (enormously long) Unix man page.
