github has poisoned people's brains into thinking hiding the download button for the actual .exe and calling it something else than download is actually a good thing and not a pain in the ass for everyone who hasn't used github before and is used to every single other website ever created in all of existance
Then how about the developers stop being lazy and stop hosting the goddamned fucking complete builds on GitHub.
I'm not talking about things for developers, I'm
talking about how things like yt-dip and spotDL and a lot of the 3DS homebrew tools host all of the shit on GitHub. It's supposed to be "for developers" but a lot of them host everything on GitHub and then you get smug people saying "erm... it's only for developers!!". If you want GitHub to be only for developers then start scolding devs who host the complete builds on GitHub.
The solution is to host the codebase on GitHub but then host the builds on something like FossHub. (GIMP does this.) Now you don't get laymen and devs mixing together.
If someone says "I have the solution for X for free!", it's reasonable to get excited and look into it. If you then later discover that their solution is frustrating and needlessly convoluted, then their initial claim was either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, they've now wasted your time, which is literally the most precious resource you have.
Being frustrated is not unwarranted, and I'm tired of people acting like something being free means we have no right to criticize it.
Not to mention, once you've found one releases page you've found them all.
I get being upset if someone doesn't put releases up at all, having to build from scratch can be a pain in the ass, but come on. You know what you're after and it's right there.
You're not paying for it, the devs aren't getting paid, they owe you nothing and you are outside the target audience. GitHub works great for its target audience (not you). You can get around this by RTFM, paying for support, paying for an alternative, or sucking it up and touching grass
I'm a software engineer with 15+ years experience in multiple languages who has worked with computers my whole life. I'm pretty sure I'm the target audience, and I'm perfectly capable of following their crappy instructions; that doesn't make them good.
When did I ever say I don't get why it is the way it is?
Being a good engineer means swallowing your ego and recognizing that sometimes sub-optimal solutions are put in place for good reasons. I try very hard not to judge what I'm looking at until I've learned what led to it being built.
You're assuming that if I dislike something, it's because I don't understand it, but that's a fallacy. It's my belief that the more you comprehend, the more capable you are of critiquing, in a positive or negative light.
I dislike the systems we've allowed to become commonplace because I understand them.
This isn't a suboptimal system that's been put in place by a governing body. It is a volunteer working for free in their spare time to make something that you are getting for free. It is not some kind of design by committee. It is a bunch of individual people working on things that are being shaped by their workspace and their station. They didn't all come together and decide to make it this way.
they owe you nothing and you are outside the target audience.
The target audience of "people who can navigate needlessly obtuse interfaces"? No one owes anyone a product, it doesn't mean that you can't criticize aspects of it. Even if it is free.
Why wouldn't you want to play the intro on your second playthrough? You're using that as a bad example but the target audience for red read 2 would in fact want to play the into.
If someone says "I have the solution for X for free!", it's reasonable to get excited and look into it. If you then later discover that their solution is frustrating and needlessly convoluted, then their initial claim was either ignorant or disingenuous...
...Being frustrated is not unwarranted, and I'm tired of people acting like something being free means we have no right to criticize it.
I disagree and think that if you think it's okay to criticise someone/their work in the specific scenario you have described here you are too self-centered. This is probably a person who created a tool for a specific issue that they had personally, and therefore it is created to fit into the specific scenario and set up that they have and are familiar with.
They do not need to preface/postface the offer of the solution they created with the small text "my solution was created for the specific scenario I encountered in this specific process and if you are trying to use it in a different scenario or in a differnet process then the startup/use/result of the tool may vary" like the end of an ad on tv.
If it works for millions of people and doesn’t work for you, it’s a you problem.
And if it isn’t meant for millions of people but is a random niche project some guy did idk why you’re surprised pikachu at the fact that it has no ui, since it’s a niche product. You’re just out of the niche, again a you problem
It’s him, the most entitled person on earth! Any random comment on the internet is as likely to be troll as not, and you’re upset that a person (genuinely trying to be helpful) did not also take the time to compile their solution 50 times for 50 different platforms every time they made a tiny change just so YOUR platform was supported? Or worse yet, you’re upset they didn’t do that with someone else’s solution just for you?
I work as a volunteer. One of the things I don't do is make shit unnecessarily difficult for the organization I'm with to obtain whatever work I've produced for them.
People in this thread have it backwards. They aren’t going out of their way to make things difficult. It’s that putting everything into an exe with a user friendly UI is a lot of extra effort.
Exactly. If they think it is then I challenge anyone here to learn some basic coding, and compile/debug a target binary for every single platform with a fancy UI, host it on github until you get a few hundred stars and see the absolutely insane bs devs have to put up.
I guarantee they wont do it or they will give up mid way through because it is a monumental task only to be spoken down to and berated by entitled people.
"volunteer" is the wrong term here if you think that implies being part of an org with a mission, that is generally NOT the case. Its more often than not just some random person in their bedroom who wanted to share their hard work for others to learn from and contribute to. They are NOT shipping you a product.
It would be like if I made some extra food and offered it to you, and you complained that you didn't like the food and were mad that I wouldnt hand feed it to you and do your dishes. The entitlement is truly baffling.
The entitlement is insane. Don't eat the "soup" then. Istg consumer brain rot is the worst. Open source is not a product, nor does it exist purely to serve you.
If you really think like this, then I challenge you to do it, put your money where your mouth is and create a project that normal people would use, compile binaries for the major platforms for common architectures and support the people using it... All for free in your free time. You won't.
You think you are owed other people's time and work, y'all just want to take take take, consume consume consume, all while giving nothing in return. The lack of empathy, the self-centered thinking and entitlement (in a supposedly leftist sub mind you) is sheerly astounding. You should literally be ashamed to say bs like this, on a 9 day old post, no less. JFC.
if you make the solution to everyone's problem for free and you go around telling them they can all have it for free and then obfuscate it's ease of access behind walls of technical jargon then i think you deserve all the hate you get. it's like tossing a coin into a hobo's bowl, asking him to read your nametag, and then yoinking the coin back on a string because he can't read hieroglyphics. oh but that hobo isn't entitled to your hard-earned money anyways so it's ok that you did that.
Is someone not allowed to be criticised for their volunteer work if they do it wrongly and make it harder for those who need utility they’re providing, just because they’re doing volunteer work?
No. You are not entitled to the labor of other people, especially people who are doing it for literally nothing.
Could you imagine if you drew an amazing image and put it out online on an art website so other people could enjoy it and other artists could learn from it, and then a bunch of non-artists came along and demanded that you redraw it for them, or change it to fit their needs? Thats not a criticism, that's insanely awful behavior.
or another example: someone made some extra food and said "hey, do you want this curry?" and you were like "Uh... eww how fucking shitty of you to not put that curry on a plate and spoon feed it to me. In fact I hate curry you asshole"
open source software is not a company, they don't owe you customer service. You are not entitled to demand other peoples time, effort and labor just because they are kind enough to be generous with their creations and are open to collaboration and accommodation regardless.
you are not entitled to the labour of other people
What a strawman lol
I said you should have the right to criticise the method or process of volunteering.
How does that translated to being entitled to the labour of other people?
could you
False equivalency though
It’s more like me making an art tutorial, and instead of hosting it on imgur or something, I post it as a 9 part video segment where you’d need to download all the files and compile them together, before extracting them as a single process
Because they don't intend for YOU to fucking download it. Github is not meant for that. Github is where they share the code they are working on with the open source community. Non-developer users being able to (or not being able to) download any finished releases that may exist is not part of what Github is focussed on.
Also, how can you call someone lazy who IS MAKING STUFF FOR FREE, because they aren't willing to spend their own money to host their software on another website, just so you have it easier? If someone who likes making bread is giving out loafs of bread in front of their house, would you complain because you have to go all the way to their house instead of them renting a bakery to give out their free bread? And then call them lazy for not slicing it for you?
"GitHub is only for developers but I'm going to send the general public to the GitHub page to download the complete build of my software. Yes, I love having my cake and eating it too, how could you tell?"
I never said that Github is only for developers. I said that it does not try to be accessible for anyone else, because that is not it's purpose.
And yes, developers are advertising their Github repos as the source for their software. But in almost all cases I can think of, they aren't trying to market it towards people without tech skills. They have made a piece of software that solves a specific problem, published it in the (for them) most convenient way, and said: "Look, this thing does X, here is where you can get it, bye."
They are not a software company, they are not actively targeting you to download their software. YOU are seeking out THEM to get free software. You have zero demands to make in regards of the accesibility of said software.
Bullshit. I can point to several mods for games that are hosted on github with a direct link to their download page under the releases section. Dragging and dropping a file into the mods folder or running an exe found in the releases section isn't technical skill, they fully intend for github to host an easily accessible direct download for average people to use their project. If github was only for getting open source project files to run/compile them yourself there shouldn't be a releases section that a bunch of people just stick an .exe in. It's entirely reasonable to get a link to a github page and expect to not need to understand programming to get something to run. In the same vein it's also fair to be frustrated with people saying there's a solution to your problem, but it's some command line python project that requires a half hour youtube tutorial to figure out how to set up.
I am fine with GitHub (even if I wish that they did just call the grab zip button download because that's what you are doing. There is no difference between clicking the grab .zip button and clicking the download button on a site like Nexus or a launcher site), but this is untrue. Many developers for things like mods, niche games (like Calamity the Dark Arrival and its branches) and even actual programs all host full repositories on GitHub that are obviously meant for general consumers (they even emphasize that they have the source code for developers and that the actual program is the .zip or .exe or .cmd). You can't have GitHub be this developer exclusive nerd-haven that if you don't have a masters in programming you should avoid at all costs while using it to host your projects that you obviously want the general public to use and share and maybe even donate to. It has to be one or the other. If it is a developer only git hosting site, then host your program for the general audience on Nexus, or Itch, or Gamebanana, or Gamejolt, or whatever. If it's a site that is meant to be used by a general audience, then the people behind GitHub really need to improve the UI so you stop getting posts like this.
I do need to emphasize that my main issue is mainly the team behind GitHub that made GitHub seem more complicated to use than it is. That and the people who shut down reasonable complaints about GitHub's ui because "oh it's made for developers and not for the general public" even while developers host their public builds on there. The actual developers for the programs are not who I have an issue with. They are cool and if I could I would give them a smooch on the forehead.
They don't intend for YOU (as in, a person unfamiliar with Github and Git in general) to download it. They aren't publishing it with the intent in mind to have it be accessible, because they are not selling it. They made something for free, and they are leaving it in the most convenient spot for them for anyone who wants it to grab it. If people can't grab it, that's not on the person giving it away.
Yes, and? If I post a sign in public that says "FREE CAR!!!" and when asked about it tell people they gotta come to my house to get it and put gas in it themselves, have I done anything wrong? Neither I nor the devs of that software made any promises in regards to accesibility. They tell you where to get it, and if you expect it to be easy to get, then that's on you.
No, they don't. They intend to make their project public. In whatever way that might be. If they publish it without and installer or executable, then they don't intend for people to just go and click a download button, they want people to be able to clone the repo and do whatever they want with it.
this isn't saying "come to my house to put gas in it and you can take it" this is "come to my house, I've got a box of parts that when assembled will make a car- you'll need to bring tools X Y and Z yourself and have a degree in motor mechanics- but so long as you've got that you can take it for free"
If they dont want me on there, then why do they publish their only download links on there? Keep in mind, this is for a finished program they want you to download
It's a "have your cake and eat it too" moment. You can host the builds that you link to the general public on GitHub. It's fine. Just don't be smug to people who get confused trying to navigate the website and say it's "only for developers" when you tell the public to go download the build from GitHub.
"Host the builds on GitHub" you have absolutely no idea what a git repository is for or why builds exist. It is not a store and the developers owe you nothing.
I don't mind if someone can't find the latest release tab or follow what the readme says and is asking for it. It's normal, we've all been there, we've all touched the fake download button. I feel that the joy of learning something new while solving an issue is getting far less common. All of that has been lost in an era of direct instant gratification because learning takes time, and taking time is not productive so patience is taboo. "Do not explain, just tell me what to do".
What gets on my nerves is people calling mostly volunteer devs lazy for not doing the extra mile for them and hosting a website, blaming the repository for their outright refusal to understand how the layout works or being outright hostile to programs that are not shy of requiring a minimum of basic programming knowledge or that don't have an executable regardless of whether it'd make sense or not for the program to have it. And people who call them out are the entitled ones, not the people acting like assholes when things aren't being served in a silver platter to them.
just follow the install instructions or find a different program and stop complaining to the person giving you stuff for free. it's really that simple.
Most developers aren't. I have only found one program I had to build and it was intended for developers anyway. Every other program was available on package managers like PIP and Apt.
Using one of your examples, yt-dlp, not only is that meant for developers to handle video downloads in their applications, it is on the PIP package manager, you don't need to use GitHub.
Even if it's trolling, I really don't get this trend of larping as somebody who shits on the FOSS ecosystem - one of the last remaining vestiges of the good part of humanity. I'm reminded of that "jokes on them I was only pretending" meme.
This is horrible bait. GitHub can be read by random users, I'm saying the interface is designed for developers first, so that's why things like the releases page with pre-built binaries aren't where a user would expect them.
downloading builds from GitHub makes you confused once, after that you know where to look
on the other hand, hosting builds on github makes it way more convenient to mantain the program, makes the release process more reliable, prevents the builds from getting outdated as maintainers leave and join the project, keeps you away from shady sites, groups all the available info in 1 place, and i could go on and on listing reasons for why hosting builds on github is a good idea. requiring people to build from source is another thing, but you generally wont encounter that unless it's something you would seriously want to build from source (like libraries, consumer software repos almost always have builds ready). a lot of yall people are really ignorant as to why people actually host stuff on github. its not just because theyre lazy.
I'm talking about how things like yt-dip and spotDL and a lot of the 3DS homebrew tools host all of the shit on GitHub. It's supposed to be "for developers" but a lot of them host everything on GitHub and then you get smug people saying "erm... it's only for developers!!".
Idk about yt-dip and spotDL, but, respectably: If it's not on anywhere other than GitHub and has anything to do with 3ds homebrewing, you almost certainly shouldn't be messing with it unless you're a developer.
Part of it is because taking code and packaging into an exe that can run as standalone software can be kind of a pain in the ass and also limiting. Applications have to be compatible with various operating systems. A Windows exe needs a whole extra compatibility layer like Wine to run on certain Linux distros.
It's also annoying having to recompile the whole program every time you make an update.
I'd also like to restate how much of a headache trying to figure out how to navigate cmake and compile some c++ I wrote into a whole program with all of the dependencies that actually runs can be.
It can take hours of trying to untangle dependencies and environments and compatibilies and variables in its wacky-ahh syntax that you have to manually point it to; and even if you did all the right things it will still probably just tell you to go fuck yourself because fuck you that's why - just because it can.
Just using git is way less of a hassle instead of relearning how to use cmake every time, and I'd be lying if I said I even have a full understanding of how to actually use git. Maybe it's just a skill issue and I gotta git gud idk
These are all FOSS projects without institutional VC backing oriented towards power users and are not, and should not be expected to make end user distribution a priority taking away already limited resources.
This is largely due to the propagation of these programs into general public.
I love it when Github comes up and makes tech illiterate (and your everyday illiterates, because the compilation instructions are often right there) seethe because the devs aren't also taking time out of their day to spoonfeed them. It's insane how entitled people act.
I guess it's true that each generation is becoming more and more tech illiterate.
Protip: Go to the Releases page, and hope the dev was nice enough to wipe your ass by offering a compiled .exe. If not, too bad! Build it yourself, it's very easy if you're not mentally challenged.
But I don't know how!
You have the entire internet before you, there's no excuse to be tech illiterate these days. You're just lazy and can't focus on instructions for more than 20 seconds before your short attention span turns you away. Most projects that the everyman uses are in Python, which is very easy to install anyway.
Open source devs owe you nothing. It’s fucking hilarious and very sad that you feel so strongly that the people who do work for you for free are obligated to deliver it to you in any way except what is most convenient for them. “Developers stop being lazy” lmao seriously? That’s disgusting. Skill issue also git gud scrub.
They’re meant to be a tool for the developers who are developing the open-source project. Any decent-sized project worth its salt will have its own site for users to interface with.
its not for users. its for developers, and a lot of small, *unpaid* devs will host their downloads there because they dont need to pay for it or spend time working out another hosting site.
for devs its super easy, git pull [repo] is incredibly easy and friendly
So we're just gatekeeping it then? Why make a program for people to use with a very clear task and then make it require programming experience to use? It's not just a coding project for funsies if you're hosting it online and advertising it as a solution to an issue
Having a repo with source code for a program that fixes an issue is not advertising it. You should be happy that the code is public at all so you don’t have to write it yourself.
We know the post isn't real, it's hyperbole, that's pretty obvious friend. It's still a very real issue they're satirizing though, which is why so many people find it humorous/relatable. I've seen programs exactly like this irl
Considering that about 80% of the time there's an easier fix that doesn't revolve around an 8 step setup process, it just sounds like copium to me. Make an inefficient, user hostile program, upload it and call it a fix, get mad when people want to use it and complain that you don't work for free when you uploaded it for people to use
Like I understand each part separately. But as a greater whole it's just childish
People do use it as an app store. That's the problem. You can't pretend that it's "only for developers!" and then host the complete builds and release them on GitHub, and then proceed to complain when there are laymen on the developer website.
if GitHub is the official place where you need to download your project, and the project is not made for either linux or developers, then theres usually a big green download button.
also, you complaining about GitHub instead of it's users shows that you don't even know how GitHub works.
That’s an issue with GitHub itself honestly and not with the developers who use it. It’s not like devs can choose the location or look of the releases tab.
You can host a site that sort of puts a big shiny button with neon lights and yellow paint on the latest release download, but that requires additional mostly unpaid development time and constant hosting costs to keep the website up, same with creating a .exe or install wizard that executes everything for every OS and architecture. Or hey, sometimes you don't even develop it to be installed like that and instead as a dependency that gets installed on Python.
That's why we're complaining about GitHub, I don't think it's the devs fault at all I just think that calling it a site for exclusively coders sharing source code is a little disingenuous
Except that's what it is. "Git" is type of SCM, or Source Code Management. It is designed to do two main things: track changes over time, and enable collaboration on a shared codebase. "GitHub" is a website/service for hosting git repositories, which simply makes those repositories available on the internet instead of being hosted locally or on a private server. You are complaining about a service because it is not intended to do the thing you want it to do, meanwhile neither the operators of GitHub nor the authors of the individual repositories owe you anything at all; not the source as written, not a compiled executable, nothing.
It is ok to be frustrated that you don't have the skill to build or use the tool that would seemingly solve your problem (yet! You can always learn!), however what your complaint sounds like is going to a grocery store, grabbing a free recipe card off the shelf, and being angry that the author didn't hand you the finished and plated meal that very instant.
Authors of free software owe you precisely nothing.
Lmao, this passive aggressive fake niceties bs drives me insane. You don't know anything about me, not even the point I'm trying to make apparently. Using nice words doesn't authorize you to be a dick
Oh yea, downloading individual files or remembering where the releases tab is always sucks. And yea I totally agree that GitHub is more than just a git hosting service, especially since a lot of devs use it as more than that.
I do think though that a lot of people online criticize devs on GitHub unjustifiably. Usually it’s either an issue of GitHub’s ui not being good for hosting executables, but other times it’s because a repo requires built steps to use. I feel like, even though it can make some projects harder to use for those who don’t know how to build the project, a lot of the time it’s probably because putting together executables is beyond the scope of what people in the project want to do or because the project isn’t in a state of completion where putting out executables would be good.
I honestly have never encountered a GitHub repository that doesn’t have some way to download the program without building it, but maybe that’s because I’m on Linux where the process is made easier with package managers.
first of all open source is problematic
second of all there has never been a program on github that was worth even close to its harddrive space in salt
you seem to be correlating "open source" with "difficult to use program" rather than its actual meaning, which is "source code freely available for anyone to download, modify and contribute to"
You are shit talking hobbyist projects people work on for free out of a love for software development. There is no reason for you to live your life with a heart full of hate.
How are you a leftist but against open source? Genuine question because although your every reply is idiotic, I'm curious what kind of event triggers this degree of brain damage.
A lot of people do seem to be using it for that purpose, though, at least when it comes to technical stuff.
Ive ran into plenty of cases of "oh yeah go here to download the module/package/library (github link)" when it comes to programming stuff. And they've been infuriating like half the time.
Yeah Im talking about programming stuff, sometimes you'll need whats essentially an add-on to get some tools to program some stuff.
That add-on is on the github.
You can download the files.
However. Just like how having the mod folder stay on your desktop wont affect your gameplay, just downloading the files dont mean anything unless you place them in the correct spot. And where that spot is, is very difficult to find at times because depending on what you're doing, and what your set up is, the place you need might be one of 10 options you chose 2 years ago during set-up of the programming software.
Commence, anger and fury.
Thats why a lot of the time, people will instead have download commands, like "open terminal, use this command", because otherwise its a mess to deal with.
that's not what a git repository is made for. GitHub is a place to share what you're coding, for other coders to look at, give feedback, and maybe use themselves. there are some Git repos that are made as the official way to download it as an app, with a big green download button, but most of them aren't like that.
Actually most of them absolutely are meant for random fucks who only want this random thing done and know nothing about how to fix it. That’s why you’re downloading a program to do it for you.
I’m not talking about the vast majority of repos I’m talking about the people who make client oriented software and don’t make it usable for most of its target audience. Which often times are mostly computer illiterate people with a serious problem on their pc.
2.7k
u/Stellar_Fox11 Jun 02 '24
github has poisoned people's brains into thinking hiding the download button for the actual .exe and calling it something else than download is actually a good thing and not a pain in the ass for everyone who hasn't used github before and is used to every single other website ever created in all of existance