I absolutely stand by my claim that FRT is the Next Generation of FOSS for several reasons.

To begin with even now in the 2020s billions of people alive today have never once been on the Internet. Source: https://www.un.org/en/delegate/itu-29-billion-people-still-o...

Also billions more may have some kind of Internet but it's flaky. Sometimes very very flaky. They are systematically excluded from large swathes of the FOSS ecosystem.

So make no mistake, the scale of the problem is VAST. We're talking billions of people here that can be helped by FRT. Again, billions, with a B.

If all existing FOSS were transformed into FRTs overnight the world would be unrecognizably better by several orders of magnitude.

And yes we need a new manifesto/definition. FOSS standards have completely dropped the ball on this issue among several others. Do a ctrl+f for the word "offline" in either the Free Software Definition or the Open Source Definition.

Many FOSS implementations also drop the ball here. Happily some do the right thing. Sometimes deliberately which is beautiful to see. Often though it turns out it's accidental and one redesign of the site later I can't get docs for the latest version of the tool.

Oftentimes it's the small (sometimes subtle) details that make the difference between freedom and lack thereof and the FRTD exists to make sure they are covered.

Even seemingly simple things often aren't. Consider pointers, they're just a thing that stores a memory address, no big deal right, easy peasy, yet using them safely is the subject of at least several chapters in a book, and even calls for research into and implementations of safer approaches like those used by Rust.

And yes one of the details the FRTD addresses is the discoverability issue you mention with the man pages.

Say I'm a newbie that just learned there's a thing called the command line and I open my terminal. I see a Bash prompt, but I don't know what to do with it, or even that it's a Bash prompt. I don't know about the man command. I don't know about apropos. I don't know about GNU info. I don't know to try looking for info manuals if I can't find man pages. I just vaguely know from like the movies or something I have to type stuff, press enter, and then stuff happens.

I don't know anything yet. The fact that the man pages are on my system and will be available offline does all of bupkis for me at this point.

On Linux there's a man page called "intro" (and even though there's room for improving it) after which someone reads it they actually have a fighting chance of using the command line and knowing where to learn more. On OpenBSD there's a similar man page called "help" that does a similar job and starts the whole conceptual bootstrap chain. Yet nothing tells me to start my studies by running "man intro".

On Linux a one sentence message saying to run "man intro" to begin your studies of the command line would go a long way for example.

The difference between information and knowledge is often a few small bits of commonsensically placed metadata forming a conceptual bootstrap chain as well as one pointing to the chain's start. Not labor intensive on the part of implementers yet transforms the system from zero to superhero.

Or perhaps since William Shotts wrote an excellent book called The Linux Command Line, and it's licensed under Creative Commons such that it can be reproduced and included in Linux distributions, maybe there can be a pointer telling people to read that at wherever it's stored on the system instead because it's far superior to "man intro".

Again a one or two sentence message can make all the difference.