Re: What's a .cnt?
Oh yeah, and what about the man page on "ln" which eschews the usual unix idiom and waffles so effectively that no-one can figure out which comes first: the file name or the link name. man pages are a cowpat in the field of technical documentation.
Then there are the Java-enabled tech things like the certificate management doodad on Solaris that don't have man pages, they use a different online manual. Then there's perldoc of course.
Years ago I took it in the neck for owning a Windows 95 computer instead of a G3. When my brother-in-law's G3 went nails-up I offered to fix it. Every single thing that had been put about by mactards about this piece of tat was false.
Superior design == power supply (had same number of fuses as my PC one did - nil - but cost eight times as much to replace when surge killed it) made from depleted uranium suspended by two (of four possible) screws over most delicate component - the motherboard. The monitor (also made from transuranics) was perched on a dead artistic but engineeringly dubious ribbon of lucite. Brother-in-law's stand shattered when I looked at it wrong. I'm not joking about that. I was five feet from it and thinking "at last I can get rid of this *&^%ing albatross" when it broke.
CMOS battery of bizarre design that cost three times more than PC lithium cell but lasted less time in the field.
And the HELP function was the best (which is what made me remember this in a discussion of man pages). Windows had a single unified help system. The G3 had three different ones. Oh yeah, *much* better.
The OS would crash for bizarre reasons too (OS 9, now admitted to be POS but in those days being sung up as perpetual motion on toast), including hoovering the mouse over an icon "too long".
Don't argue with man page evangelists: they are living in a bubble. Hey, you can see how great they are by simply comparing how many times person A uses them as opposed to going straight to google.