1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
|
Frequently Asked Questions
--------------------------
Why use man-db instead of man?
==============================
The man (currently http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/) and man-db
packages forked from a common code base in the mid-1990s. The original goal
of man-db was, as indicated by the name, to add database caching to manual
page searches. The increase in computer performance has considerably
outpaced the growth of manual page collections, so some people now ask what
the point is of using man-db rather than man.
These days, the database is indeed not such an important difference between
man-db and man, but there are several other areas where man-db does a
significantly better job than man:
* Internationalisation
man uses the obsolete catgets system for translations of the messages
emitted by its programs, which cannot deal with the user using a
different output encoding (e.g. UTF-8) from that provided by the
translators. man-db uses gettext, which is more correct and robust.
In order to support many cases of non-English manual pages, man requires
manual hardcoding of iconv pipelines (or similar) and *roff device names
in its configuration file, and cannot operate correctly in environments
involving a variety of encodings. man-db handles all this out of the
box.
* Security and code quality
Security matters because both man and man-db can be installed setuid to
a special user, and also because man is sometimes used in semi-trusted
or untrusted contexts, such as from CGI scripts.
Both man and man-db spend a lot of time calling external programs, often
in pipelines. man does so by assembling strings which it then feeds to
the shell; this approach is nowadays well-known to be fragile and prone
to security vulnerabilities. man-db has been redesigned from top to
bottom to have safe and correct command execution, using a special
"libpipeline" library.
* Performance
Happily, dealing with manual pages is not normally a
performance-critical task these days; manual pages can normally be found
and rendered comfortably within expected interactive response times.
However, there are a few cases that are still more difficult, such as
'man -K' to perform a full-text search on all manual pages. Neither man
nor man-db includes a proper full-text search engine, but there is
nevertheless a significant performance difference here: man-db performs
this search at least three times as quickly as man, and in some cases
much better than that. (On the test system, man took five minutes to
search all manual pages, severely degrading interactive performance of
the rest of the system for that time; man-db took around 40 seconds.)
* Maintenance
At the time of writing (February 2012), man-db has had ten full releases
since the start of 2008 with substantial feature work, while man has had
one release with a few minor changes.
I have great respect for the people who maintain man, but as a project it
has fallen badly behind. Rather than continuing to struggle along with
complicated patch sets, those distributions that still use man would
probably be better off switching to man-db.
|
