Only if one sets the bar quite low, and has very lax standards for doco. Unfortunately, people often do set the bar low in the Linux world. But to those from other worlds the descriptions that come to mind are "acceptable" and "mediocre". As people have pointed out passim over the years, the expected as the norm quality of doco for the worlds of the BSDs and the commercial Unices is noticeably a higher standard than in the Linux world. By those standards, "second to none" is most definitely an exaggeration.
Sadly, "treated as an afterthought" is all too often still applicable, as well; this also being a disease of Linux doco that it hasn't wholly shaken off. The culture of updating the doco in lockstep when the software changes hasn't really taken a firm root, alas.
Just one example of such doco problems is a systemd issue where the doco does not tell the the issue raiser that the entire basis for the issue is wrong. Users have to resort to finding commentary hidden in the source code. Raised as a documentation issue, it requests a documentation change to warn users of something that is not in fact the case at all. Ironically, the true doco issue is actually that it is deficient, and the correct doco change would be to move the commentary into the manual where users can easily see it.
Can you give an example of a better-documented open-source project that is less than 5 years old and has the same level of complexity of the systemd family?
Sadly, "treated as an afterthought" is all too often still applicable, as well; this also being a disease of Linux doco that it hasn't wholly shaken off. The culture of updating the doco in lockstep when the software changes hasn't really taken a firm root, alas.
Just one example of such doco problems is a systemd issue where the doco does not tell the the issue raiser that the entire basis for the issue is wrong. Users have to resort to finding commentary hidden in the source code. Raised as a documentation issue, it requests a documentation change to warn users of something that is not in fact the case at all. Ironically, the true doco issue is actually that it is deficient, and the correct doco change would be to move the commentary into the manual where users can easily see it.
* https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5735
* https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-tim...
* https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/5f36e3d30375cf04292b...
* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/systemd-documentation-errata.html