Nah I kinda agree, just give me a “download” button somewhere. I don’t care about your build file, deprecated classes, list of supporters or whatever the fuck else you keep on there.
I would suggest that github is the wrong place to go look for that. Github is for developers, primarily a place to share source code, for people who DO care about build files, deprecated classes, contributors, and git history - so they can make the software that runs large parts of the modern world more efficient and flexible.
Whether there’s an executable provided is completely optional and up to each author. Further, considering in this specific example it was python code, it’s far more flexible for the author to provide python run instructions (which the author HAD provided by the way) than it is to give you a .exe which would take extra, unnecessary effort, and overlooks that the tool he was writing could also be used on linux and macos based machines (because python command exist on those)
I’m not browsing github for random software to install. I’m looking for specific bits of software to do something and coming to github because it’s the only place the devs host their software.
Like I get what github is for, I use it almost every day, it’s the people using it to host downloads for their software that are using it outside its intended purpose (kind of)
For what architecture? You use windows, what about Linux? What about MacOS? Should the author spend their time making an executable for each platform? Or only the platforms that are most popular? (Edit: also, I’m not going to touch the fact that for complex programs there are third party dependencies which have license restrictions to be bundled together into an exe or provided into a zip as a dll, which is extra work for the dev to do just to make an exe)
Secondly, as I pointed out in my above comment which you seemed to have missed:
Some code, as is literally the case for the original source does NOT run via a standalone executable, so there is NO exe to upload. It is run via third party interpreters, in this case the Python interpreter.
There’s a section about how to run the code in the original post for example here https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock?tab=readme-ov-file#usage - it requires the source code (because its not compiled, it’s interpreted) and installing python - which then is used via python3 sherlock to run the tool. Again, in cases like this there is literally no executable to upload. There may be some roundabout ways to upload an executable that packages, but that’s way beyond just providing the source to be run via python.
Also to edit to say this: Regardless of how “easy” you may think uploading an exe for something might be, calling the people developing that code “stupid smelly nerds” as the original poster did (not you) is completely disrespectful, arrogant and entitled, and if someone demanded that I upload an exe to one of my repos like that, I would completely ignore their request.
I mean, you’re partially right yeah - for bigger projects with more devs, they often DO provide windows/linux/etc executables, and that does save a ton of hours.
But for smaller projects with one main dev, it’s a lot to expect one person to make releases for all platforms. Maybe for the platform they develop for at best - though if that’s not your (not you personally, just general) favorite platform, you’d still be out of luck.
Again to repeat: it’s a moot point in the case of this context since there was NO EXECUTABLE to provide - it was a python script. So arguing this is completely unapplicable in this case! The original poster was just being an entitled jerk who didn’t bother reading anything and resorted to name-calling.
If you want a streamlined and convenient user experience, then go fuck off and find commercial software with paid support where a good user experience is expected
Someone made a tool, thought it was cool and wanted to share what they had for free, they owe you nothing especially a “streamlined and convenient user experience”
Not really? Which is why almost everyone (including you I’m betting) use a gui when using a computer instead of the terminal.
And also maybe step back a second and realise you’re actually getting heated and resorting to insults over disagreeing with someone over wether there should be a download button on a website.
Nah, I think it’s fair to call someone stupid if they genuinely cannot follow two commands. If they can get to the website, they’ve done something just as complicated.
It’s like calling someone dumb for succeeding in riding a bike, but refusing to try a moped when they’re specifically asking to get from point a to b without tiring themselves. “Yea… we’re telling you how to do it. Stop being afraid of something basic, idiot.”
You’re not going to get it on a system for technical users like Github. That’s for managing software projects and handling code. Make a website if you want a big fancy download button.
This is like complaining a forklift doesn’t have cruise control.
By all means keep getting actually mad at someone for wanting a download button on website. I’m sure the next insult you throw at me for that will prove how stable and well adjusted you are :)
I tend to agree, I don’t go on GitHub very often but pretty much every time if I don’t land on the screen where I can download the files (if it’s a project that has “packages” that can be downloaded I mean, not just code that’s executed in a terminal), I need a bit of time to remember where to find the releases page, when that should be something easily accessible from a UX perspective.
I just checked again and on mobile it’s all the way at the bottom of the page…
Wanting the most used version control platform in the world, that is owned by the biggest software developer in the world to have slightly better UX, is not the same as wanting g to be a millionaire.
The worst is when there is an error in the install commands that you have to debug and correct yourself. When they didn’t even bother to test their install commands it gives me pause about even installing the thing. But I’ve definitely had the experience before and then had the actual software itself work fine
Nah I kinda agree, just give me a “download” button somewhere. I don’t care about your build file, deprecated classes, list of supporters or whatever the fuck else you keep on there.
I just want to download the software and use it.
I would suggest that github is the wrong place to go look for that. Github is for developers, primarily a place to share source code, for people who DO care about build files, deprecated classes, contributors, and git history - so they can make the software that runs large parts of the modern world more efficient and flexible.
Whether there’s an executable provided is completely optional and up to each author. Further, considering in this specific example it was python code, it’s far more flexible for the author to provide python run instructions (which the author HAD provided by the way) than it is to give you a .exe which would take extra, unnecessary effort, and overlooks that the tool he was writing could also be used on linux and macos based machines (because python command exist on those)
I’m not browsing github for random software to install. I’m looking for specific bits of software to do something and coming to github because it’s the only place the devs host their software.
Like I get what github is for, I use it almost every day, it’s the people using it to host downloads for their software that are using it outside its intended purpose (kind of)
…how hard is it to upload something in the release section for people to download?
For what architecture? You use windows, what about Linux? What about MacOS? Should the author spend their time making an executable for each platform? Or only the platforms that are most popular? (Edit: also, I’m not going to touch the fact that for complex programs there are third party dependencies which have license restrictions to be bundled together into an exe or provided into a zip as a dll, which is extra work for the dev to do just to make an exe)
Secondly, as I pointed out in my above comment which you seemed to have missed:
Some code, as is literally the case for the original source does NOT run via a standalone executable, so there is NO exe to upload. It is run via third party interpreters, in this case the Python interpreter.
There’s a section about how to run the code in the original post for example here https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock?tab=readme-ov-file#usage - it requires the source code (because its not compiled, it’s interpreted) and installing python - which then is used via
python3 sherlockto run the tool. Again, in cases like this there is literally no executable to upload. There may be some roundabout ways to upload an executable that packages, but that’s way beyond just providing the source to be run via python.Also to edit to say this: Regardless of how “easy” you may think uploading an exe for something might be, calling the people developing that code “stupid smelly nerds” as the original poster did (not you) is completely disrespectful, arrogant and entitled, and if someone demanded that I upload an exe to one of my repos like that, I would completely ignore their request.
Dunno, just put an .exe, .snap and whatever thing MacOS uses. .img, I think?
About the first part - isn’t it that if developers don’t do it, literally everyone else has to?
Seems to me like devs saving an hour to give thousands of man-hours of headache on the side of end users.
I mean, you’re partially right yeah - for bigger projects with more devs, they often DO provide windows/linux/etc executables, and that does save a ton of hours.
But for smaller projects with one main dev, it’s a lot to expect one person to make releases for all platforms. Maybe for the platform they develop for at best - though if that’s not your (not you personally, just general) favorite platform, you’d still be out of luck.
Again to repeat: it’s a moot point in the case of this context since there was NO EXECUTABLE to provide - it was a python script. So arguing this is completely unapplicable in this case! The original poster was just being an entitled jerk who didn’t bother reading anything and resorted to name-calling.
Yeah I only refer to the practice in general, not that case for sure.
Compared to giving your dumb ass the source? A lot. A lot of effort. Shut up and learn how to run two simple commands.
Yeah fuck people who want a streamlined and convenient user experience. They must be dumb.
If you want a streamlined and convenient user experience, then go fuck off and find commercial software with paid support where a good user experience is expected
Someone made a tool, thought it was cool and wanted to share what they had for free, they owe you nothing especially a “streamlined and convenient user experience”
Imagine getting this mad over someone wanting g a download button.
If two commands for compiling and launching an app isn’t “streamlined and convenient”, you are too stupid to use the app.
Not really? Which is why almost everyone (including you I’m betting) use a gui when using a computer instead of the terminal.
And also maybe step back a second and realise you’re actually getting heated and resorting to insults over disagreeing with someone over wether there should be a download button on a website.
Nah, I think it’s fair to call someone stupid if they genuinely cannot follow two commands. If they can get to the website, they’ve done something just as complicated.
It’s like calling someone dumb for succeeding in riding a bike, but refusing to try a moped when they’re specifically asking to get from point a to b without tiring themselves. “Yea… we’re telling you how to do it. Stop being afraid of something basic, idiot.”
The obstinance deserves an insult.
I feel bad for people that have to deal with you in real life.
That’s what the releases page is for. But even then people will download the source instead and complain.
If you’re having trouble with this I suggest you find an adult.
Fucking ded. I’m stealing this.
I’m not having trouble with it. I use github every day at work. I just want an easy streamlined user experience.
You’re not going to get it on a system for technical users like Github. That’s for managing software projects and handling code. Make a website if you want a big fancy download button.
This is like complaining a forklift doesn’t have cruise control.
That’s on the people using github to distribute their software, not me.
Now I want them to make it harder to use, so that your entitled ass gets pushed off the site.
I really can’t imagine what your life must be like that you get this upset over someone wanting a button on a website.
If you wanted to play the high road, you might as well have just shut up to begin with.
And the tired “ha your life sucks” line is almost a confession more than an insult.
By all means keep getting actually mad at someone for wanting a download button on website. I’m sure the next insult you throw at me for that will prove how stable and well adjusted you are :)
I tend to agree, I don’t go on GitHub very often but pretty much every time if I don’t land on the screen where I can download the files (if it’s a project that has “packages” that can be downloaded I mean, not just code that’s executed in a terminal), I need a bit of time to remember where to find the releases page, when that should be something easily accessible from a UX perspective.
I just checked again and on mobile it’s all the way at the bottom of the page…
Yeah and I just want to be a millionaire. Son, it ain’t happening just because you want it.
Wanting the most used version control platform in the world, that is owned by the biggest software developer in the world to have slightly better UX, is not the same as wanting g to be a millionaire.
This isn’t a UX problem. If a project’s contributors don’t want to put out an easy install, tough shit.
Kinda is tho since you want a bunch of people to do basically unpaid work just so your experience can be a bit better.
TIL github was coded by slaves.
The worst is when there is an error in the install commands that you have to debug and correct yourself. When they didn’t even bother to test their install commands it gives me pause about even installing the thing. But I’ve definitely had the experience before and then had the actual software itself work fine