"I went to the farmer's market but they didn't sell me a complete meal, only all these fucking plants. They think everyone's a cook, and expect to know cooking, but i'm not and I don't. Make a fucking meal and give it to me! Stupid fucking smelly farmers" -- that's how that sounds
That's on point. They should have a restaurant there at least. Smh. /S
I mean, there is at least one, it's called the releases page. Maybe what you want to eat hasn't been prepared there, though. That's not because they don't realise people can't all cook, but because they haven't done it yet.
Just put a link to the playstore or another store where normal human beings can get the software we are interested in trying or buying /s
I'll call my guy at Google and tell him to get right on that. I'm sure the my C++ code will run very well on Android. /s
(It looks like this specific application was written in Python, so better, I guess)
Snap store or windows store then. Just put the link and not commands for us to compile and do that evil hacker stuff.
To strain your metaphor, I think what most people are looking for is a sign that says "FOOD COURT THIS WAY ->"
If they just had a prominent link to "download latest stable version" in a consistent place, people wouldn't be so confused (and devs wouldn't have to do extra work to try and make it obvious).
The specific repo in question had (and still has) a USAGE section.
And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it's not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?
Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn't want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them "SMELLY NERDS".
I'm astounded that there's still people defending this guy like that's a totally normal thing to do.
If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.
But a lot of developers do do exactly that. They not only distribute binaries on their github, it is the only place where they distribute binaries. Github should probably recognize that it is a common use case and accommodate it better.
I'm also sure that a lot of people, like myself, took no notice of what specific package this user was complaining about, and are simply agreeing with the general sentiment that github could make things easier for non-technical users (which would, in turn, make it easier for developers since they would not need to field questions from users about how they download the software).
Not really, no. There's a releases section where the developer can upload an exe for example but it's really not easy to tell that that's where you need to go if you just want to use the program/script, etc and you're not a tech savvy person.
So yeah, the UI could be improved on that front.
It's more like going to a restaurant expecting them to make a recipe but instead they tell you to select this random list of things and then they cook it (like US Mongolian bbq places).
If you know what you're doing you get a good meal. If not? Ketchup on rice.
I know how to do it but I'm not selfish enough to forget how it was the first times. You won't convince me it's user friendly
The point, which you missed, is that going to github, a source code hosting service, to look for downloading executables for your specific platform - is like going to a farmer's market to try and get a ready made meal. You're at the wrong place, and it's not meant for you if that's what you're looking for.
Github is fairly user friendly, but it's users are developers.
I'm a developer and I hardly ever compile shit for my personal computer from source. I'd rather use a package manager, sure, but on Windows that's by far the exception to the rule and if you want regular users to use your app, it needs to be a downloadable EXE.
This. Building a random app from source and tracking down its many dependencies is a massive pain in the ass, doubly so on Windows where you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops just to install a C compiler.
This can be true and still irrelevant. It’s a free git repo host. Binaries are not its main purpose and random users complaints don’t matter.
But when consumers get in contact with Github - and they do get in contact at some point - it is to download executables, since a good number of consumer-facing software which isnt on an app store does simply release their executables on github. That twists people's understanding of what the platform is.
Absolutely. Github is a TERRIBLE way to publish software or computer files, in much the same way that oatmeal is a terrible bedroom lubricant.
What's the problem with github and what would you use to publish software or computer files instead?
GitHub Pages lol
Same thing that's wrong with oatmeal: Nothing, that's just not what it's for.
Github and tools like it are designed for codebase versioning. It's a great tool for developers who have a need to collaborate with others and manage releases/branches. But, it's really not great for distributing executable apps to end users because it's not for that. You shouldn't tell end users to clone a git repo and type make install, because that's not normally how people manage software.
If possible, the app should be packaged and in a software repository/app store typical of the platform. Chocalatey on Windows (Microsoft has their own Windows Store, but fuck that), Brew on MacOS...if we're talking about an end-user application for Linux, I'd recommend Flatpak because it's become the de facto one to rule them all; if you really must host something on your own website right next to a windows .exe I will say go with appimage.
You can get hosting for distributing end user apps, Github has a service called Github Pages for this purpose, for example. But especially in the Linux world, too many creators of little things like to just point you at their git repo and only accept user feedback in the form of pull requests.
Windows store, play store, snap store...many options for software publishing. GitHub should stay as a code repository
Not OP but many Linux project I follow, since they don't have many resources, publish their releases through Torrent, a seeebox is fairly cheap (something like €10 a month) and could be easily crowdfunded even for a small project, and isn't a huge expense anyway. And the site could just be a static page, or better yet the magnet link could be aviable on Github for people that want the precompliled binaries instead of the source.
E: did i say something controversial?
just go to the releases? yes it's slightly hidden but that's because github isn't supposed to be a way to publish release files, it's supposed to be a place to host and collaborate on source code.
but so long as the developer handles releases correctly it's just like 2 clicks to download an executable file..
That's just malicious compliance. They know they shouldn't provide easy access because it may increase accountability. It's silly
Yeah seriously, I don't understand why Github can't just have a dedicated download button. Instead you have to dig through the Readme to find it and it's in a different place every time.
Nah but the dude has a point
"I went to the farmer's market but they didn't sell me a complete meal, only all these fucking plants. They think everyone's a cook, and expect to know cooking, but i'm not and I don't. Make a fucking meal and give it to me! Stupid fucking smelly farmers" -- that's how that sounds
That's on point. They should have a restaurant there at least. Smh. /S
I mean, there is at least one, it's called the releases page. Maybe what you want to eat hasn't been prepared there, though. That's not because they don't realise people can't all cook, but because they haven't done it yet.
Just put a link to the playstore or another store where normal human beings can get the software we are interested in trying or buying /s
I'll call my guy at Google and tell him to get right on that. I'm sure the my C++ code will run very well on Android. /s
(It looks like this specific application was written in Python, so better, I guess)
Snap store or windows store then. Just put the link and not commands for us to compile and do that evil hacker stuff.
To strain your metaphor, I think what most people are looking for is a sign that says "FOOD COURT THIS WAY ->"
If they just had a prominent link to "download latest stable version" in a consistent place, people wouldn't be so confused (and devs wouldn't have to do extra work to try and make it obvious).
The specific repo in question had (and still has) a
USAGEsection.And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it's not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?
Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn't want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them "SMELLY NERDS".
I'm astounded that there's still people defending this guy like that's a totally normal thing to do.
If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.
But a lot of developers do do exactly that. They not only distribute binaries on their github, it is the only place where they distribute binaries. Github should probably recognize that it is a common use case and accommodate it better.
I'm also sure that a lot of people, like myself, took no notice of what specific package this user was complaining about, and are simply agreeing with the general sentiment that github could make things easier for non-technical users (which would, in turn, make it easier for developers since they would not need to field questions from users about how they download the software).
Not really, no. There's a releases section where the developer can upload an exe for example but it's really not easy to tell that that's where you need to go if you just want to use the program/script, etc and you're not a tech savvy person.
So yeah, the UI could be improved on that front.
It's more like going to a restaurant expecting them to make a recipe but instead they tell you to select this random list of things and then they cook it (like US Mongolian bbq places).
If you know what you're doing you get a good meal. If not? Ketchup on rice.
I know how to do it but I'm not selfish enough to forget how it was the first times. You won't convince me it's user friendly
The point, which you missed, is that going to github, a source code hosting service, to look for downloading executables for your specific platform - is like going to a farmer's market to try and get a ready made meal. You're at the wrong place, and it's not meant for you if that's what you're looking for.
Github is fairly user friendly, but it's users are developers.
I'm a developer and I hardly ever compile shit for my personal computer from source. I'd rather use a package manager, sure, but on Windows that's by far the exception to the rule and if you want regular users to use your app, it needs to be a downloadable EXE.
This. Building a random app from source and tracking down its many dependencies is a massive pain in the ass, doubly so on Windows where you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops just to install a C compiler.
This can be true and still irrelevant. It’s a free git repo host. Binaries are not its main purpose and random users complaints don’t matter.
But when consumers get in contact with Github - and they do get in contact at some point - it is to download executables, since a good number of consumer-facing software which isnt on an app store does simply release their executables on github. That twists people's understanding of what the platform is.
Absolutely. Github is a TERRIBLE way to publish software or computer files, in much the same way that oatmeal is a terrible bedroom lubricant.
What's the problem with github and what would you use to publish software or computer files instead?
GitHub Pages lol
Same thing that's wrong with oatmeal: Nothing, that's just not what it's for.
Github and tools like it are designed for codebase versioning. It's a great tool for developers who have a need to collaborate with others and manage releases/branches. But, it's really not great for distributing executable apps to end users because it's not for that. You shouldn't tell end users to clone a git repo and type make install, because that's not normally how people manage software.
If possible, the app should be packaged and in a software repository/app store typical of the platform. Chocalatey on Windows (Microsoft has their own Windows Store, but fuck that), Brew on MacOS...if we're talking about an end-user application for Linux, I'd recommend Flatpak because it's become the de facto one to rule them all; if you really must host something on your own website right next to a windows .exe I will say go with appimage.
You can get hosting for distributing end user apps, Github has a service called Github Pages for this purpose, for example. But especially in the Linux world, too many creators of little things like to just point you at their git repo and only accept user feedback in the form of pull requests.
Windows store, play store, snap store...many options for software publishing. GitHub should stay as a code repository
Not OP but many Linux project I follow, since they don't have many resources, publish their releases through Torrent, a seeebox is fairly cheap (something like €10 a month) and could be easily crowdfunded even for a small project, and isn't a huge expense anyway. And the site could just be a static page, or better yet the magnet link could be aviable on Github for people that want the precompliled binaries instead of the source.
E: did i say something controversial?
just go to the releases? yes it's slightly hidden but that's because github isn't supposed to be a way to publish release files, it's supposed to be a place to host and collaborate on source code.
but so long as the developer handles releases correctly it's just like 2 clicks to download an executable file..
That's just malicious compliance. They know they shouldn't provide easy access because it may increase accountability. It's silly
Yeah seriously, I don't understand why Github can't just have a dedicated download button. Instead you have to dig through the Readme to find it and it's in a different place every time.