You're giving them way too much credit, they just need to ask "Chat" how to run the code. That's how 16-20 year olds refer to ChatGPT. It's two minutes of copy paste and "how do I run this"
The funny thing is many file managers in Linux allow you to enable execution in a properties panel. The problem is with so many different apps the terminal is universal and works about the same everywhere.
i quit my CS degree 2 years in because these sorts of people are the absolute worst at empathizing with a problem and giving a clear and fair answer. the attitude is usually that if you're asking at all, you didn't try hard enough to figure it out yourself. how dare you make me do my job
Steps to building a cool program (the really cool way)
Clone the GitHub repository
Open command prompt
Run the build command
It fails because the repository owner uses a different c++ compiler and it only works with that one
It fails again, realize you installed visual studio wrong somehow so spend an hour trying to get the visual studio installer to find and uninstall it before deleting the installation directory entirely and installing the required version again
It still fails, the project looks for version "" of protobuf but you have "3.1.10.1" so you reconfigure it to look for a real version of protobuf
It fails again, some tool that isn't in the readme is required to build it
It fails again, it's not actually compatible with windows yet
Give up and wait for pre built binaries
Edit: did the other guy that responded block me? I got a notification about it but can't load the comment
I agree that github is for developers or people who at the very least don't mind learning a bit of development and getting their hands dirty. The poster demanding an exe is quite entitled - and also from what I understand the repo he is referring to is a python repo, so there normally wouldn't be an exe, it'd just be run via a python command.
There's a bigger problem here, which is that technical skill in newer generations is also decreasing - as someone on reddit had once said "I'm a millennial and I'm doing tech support for my parents as well as my children". A generation raised on tablets and phones have gotten the false impression of being tech savy, when their actual technical skill is using end products.
Expecting every github repo to provide you with something you just click-and-run is overlooking the complexities and reality of how code is. By it self that isn't a problem, but the entitlement it takes to publicly and arrogantly post that on a public forum is astounding and counter-productive to people who work on those small repos.
Nobody has any idea how old this poster is, it could be an old ass boomer as easily as it could be a zoomer and we're just going on making statements about the technical abilities of new generations without any actual evidence other than a single person that can't do something for themselves? There are many, many people from my graduating class who would be as helpless as this person and I'm fucking 30.
The same thing happened in the previous generation too. Some boomer would start raging about how these millennials don’t know how to fix cars or install toilets or whatever anymore based on one cherry picked example and the other 95% of boomers that have been paying a mechanic or a plumber this whole time and don’t know how to do shit would just nod along.
Yes, but knowing how to install a toilet the difficult way (instead of hiring a plumber) was replaced by knowing how to install a program the difficult way (via a command line instead of an installer).
Now, Zoomers aren't stupid or tech illiterate, I have a Zoomer friend and she's more tech literate than I am. The issue is that installing a program the hard way has been replaced with minimizing your carbon and digital footprints. That's not the skill of a super predator, its the skill of prey. We've been reduced to prey for the shareholders of corporations.
I would argue that "development" is a superset of "pc operation" which includes things like opening a terminal, issuing commands, installing things, and occasionally light scripting and programming.
At some point these things should be middle school literacy, but maybe not, I'm probably biased.
It's code, git clone then build. If there is a standard makefile it's super easy. If it's some modern age hispter trash build system you're in for some pain.
There's a little trick my parents passed down to me whenever I asked them what a word meant or how to do something when I was a kid, "look it up yourself". Look up the word in the dictionary, learn how to learn how to do things, and then when you get stuck ask for help graciously. Self reliance isn't something that just happens, it takes effort and often failure.
It's a great learning technique. My family and girlfriend always say I'm so smart cause I know a lot. I don't think I'm that smart I just always take that extra step to Google something if I have any questions. Doesn't matter how small or unimportant it may seem, you never know what sort of rabbit hole you'll fall down and how much you'll learn because of it.
My biggest disagreement towards the comments that I have read is, it is a low bar for script kiddies. It is so low that I don't think the script kiddy that fails this bar is not even a script kiddy.
Regardless if you use any python then it is super easy. If you don't use python, it is super easy to learn. If you are unwilling to learn, then ask for help and don't be a condescending dick. BUT i usually don't like to spend time helping people that are unwilling to learn.
It could be used for cyberstalking, but it's not expressly built for that use case I think. All it does is spit out sites that have a matching user name on file. It's actually quite useful for periodic social media / account cleanup to check for account you created for one reason or another and no longer need / have grown dormant.
In that sense it's similar to something like Mine.
That last line isn’t too far off. The “script kiddies” are the ones sideloading malware into their Apple devices thinking they’re downloading something like “see if that hot chick looked at your Facebook profile” apps.
In an upcoming post: "Why can't anyone just make a button that automatically hacks facebook???!!!"
It's really interesting how differently you see technology as a professional compared to "normies". So much stuff is easily solved by following instructions or reading error messages.
Jesus! Ipad baby script kiddies just sounds like an absolute nightmare!
They, the people like that r*dd!t person, have the technology to look up how to do the thing that'll probably get them in trouble but are so used to everything being essentially hand fed to them thanks to "smart" phones dumbing everything down that the second they find anything inconvenient, they don't know what to do or get furious because of their lack of knowledge and start blaming everyone else.
I think this is satire because the app in question is a social media finder and the only non computer users who would want to use it probably uses apple or won't know what an exe even is.
It is when it's a tool for the hacking community by the hacking community. This is NOT an end-user program. This is a tool made for OSINT, a crucial step in social engineering.
The hacking community is not going to budge on its culture for skiddies. It never has and never will. If you don't understand what's going on, the tool probably isn't made for you.
If you don't understand the technical implications, it is very dangerous for you to be fucking around with hacking tools, both on a technical and social level.
Edit to add: the hacking community is very different from the regular open source community. They do not want people who DGAF about technology or security barging in.
They do not want to make 'destroy a persons life' buttons for some random twat to push without thinking. In this particular case, they do not want to be indirectly responsible for some DV twat literally ending their spouse. The computer knowledge barrier is far from perfect but it's enough to get in the way of most of the worst would-be abusers.
yes. I am not sure how beggars became such strong choosers, but it's very distasteful.
the program was written for the command line, for command line users, and for absolutely free. if you are not comfortable with the command line, you are perhaps not the target audience for the tool. you are not entitled to force hobby developers to build things in the way you prefer so you can use it the way you want to use it. they built it the way they like it. their opinions of their own project are the only ones that matter.
if you don't like how the software works (that someone made for you for free with their own time and is now allowing you to use it), make it yourself. if you can't, learn what you need to learn to use it or modify it... or stop complaining.
yeah, pretty much. using your computer is entitled. don't like that you have to run around and fiddle with a bunch of shit all the time to get your computer to work, or to use a nintendo switch controller on windows 10? too bad, that's just how shit is now.
More realistically I think they're just frustrated because a lot of them are legacy user kind of dudes that have been forced to learn a bunch of technical shit in order to do relatively basic things, or learned such in the past, and then kind of expect that to be the default standard, when realistically most people are just going to want to hit one, maybe two buttons and have something just work straight out of the box, because most people aren't IT guys and have other shit going on in their lives. They have their reasons for technical understanding being a kind of goal, right, like, oh, this increases your knowledge of your computer as something you interface with on the daily, oh, it's probably good if you know how to do this generally, oh, you have to know how to do this because nobody else is going to do that for you.
But then that all ends up being bullshit, because some corporation will come along, scoop up the uneducated userbase of all the larger profile vacuums in the space, generally, and then the corporation will provide them with like, the single button that does everything, in return for destroying any semblance of user privacy and totally ruining the modern internet and every facet of it by plugging monetization in every orifice they can think of. And then you'll get a bunch of people who complain that all the oxygen in the room is getting taken up by a huge corporate interest, so it's impossible to make competing standards, and how they no longer have any privacy, and how the users nowadays are just so stupid. They're completely faultless in all of this, of course, since they're tech-literate, and jesus smiles upon the tech-literate, even when they're being honestly just kind of mean and gatekeepy.
Realistically they just kind of retreat to their annals, right, to the smaller spaces that don't have corporate interest, until they interface with everyone else who's using normal shit, and they kind of lose their minds because they've been living in an alternate reality they've kind of constructed and pruned, and not actual hell, where an ad is served to them every five minutes.
Reading technical documentation is a skill, and is hard when you don't understand half the technical jargon (it doesn't help that professionals, when told to write documentation "concisely, precisely, and exhaustively" rarely manage to do all three, if any).
However ChatGPT is now a thing and dumbing down technical jargon into plain English is one of the tasks it's actually designed for. Literally no-one who doesn't have the cognitive ability or patience to ask ChatGPT help with installing Sherlock should be using OSINT tools.
You know so for this specific instance I kind of find it to be, dumb, right, really stupid, but obviously this guy is trolling, and I think in this thread I've even seen an .exe that someone compiled get posted, so I guess, good things come to those who shitpost and bitch, or whatever.
Also glad this post is (hopefully) dead, so I can write my reflections that nobody else is gonna realistically read.
More broadly, though, I've seen a lot of technically minded linux using system admin types, nerds, basically, right, that just kind of shit relentlessly on anyone who doesn't know as much as them. Which sucks, for sure, it's really annoying. It gives me the same vibe as when people talk about how everyone who moves to their country should speak the language, and understand every facet of the culture and every custom, because they're a "guest". I mean, yeah, sure, that's partially true I suppose, and certainly it would help if that were the case, to smooth the transition, right, but it's also really stupid to expect everyone to acclimate immediately. There are external factors that drive someone to settle in a country, right, could be asylum, could be, socioeconomic asylum. Those are your two options, basically. It's not really like these people don't give anything back, either, since they provide high amounts of economic value, they import their culture which can be beneficial, shit like that. It would just straight up make more sense to accommodate them more, to be nicer to them, because it would make it easier for them to acclimate. You will statistically have better outcomes if you choose that path, compared to just kind of, holding your nose up at them, and demanding everything from them and giving nothing in return.
Not the best metaphor, I'll admit, comparing a country to the collection of people who might be thought of as "tech literate", right, obviously it's apples to oranges. Nonetheless, I've seen a very kind of, elitist attitude, directed towards new people, from a group of people that should welcome anyone who seeks to understand their technology better, anyone who seeks more tech literacy. I dunno, I just feel like I've seen enough "well justified" stack overflow asshole responses that are like "uhhh I GUESS I'll tell you about this but you should've googled it" when google was what brought up the thread. Maybe that's more on google, though, I dunno. It gives me redditor vibes, like, NTA reddit vibes, where people kind of take any morally righteous position they can, in order to justify them acting like a twatsack.
It's also, practically, a strange mentality to take, because none of this is really going to prevent or discourage people from making stupid comments, right. Gatekeeping is the fucking stupidest idea I've ever really heard from the internet, because it just doesn't work. It just creates people who want to spit back at you, and that's obviously going to work itself into a kind of positive feedback loop where you're going to get flooded with more shit in return. It is energy that would be better spent making more accessible software, if such a thing is possible in these circumstances.
I dunno, at large, it is kind of these mentalities that make me think, it's not really any wonder why FOSS software, despite being more naturally suited to computer architecture, compared to other shit, isn't really as used as it should be. It's mostly just a practical concern, for people. If people have to put in 30 minutes to learn something, then that's half an hour, and if they're getting paid federal minimum wage in the states, you could charge them like three bucks and it would probably be worth their time. It's against the ideal, right, to charge for it, obviously it's not really going to be a guaranteed ROI, also you're maybe going to see a smaller userbase, because lots of people would rather pay free than cheap by a staggering proportion, and also you really can't charge for it, and still have your software remain open source, lest someone else just copies it and spreads it.
So that all sucks, in practical terms, but sort of my broader point is that the ideological position of FOSS basically can't compete with your stupid free market charge for money for software kind of shit. We get windows, we get mac, because the software, and the philosophies that built them, were more naturally suited to the socioeconomic environment they all propagated in. They are "more practical", both in terms of your end user's uses, but also in terms of how they spread. It's cynical. It is our old friend of naive techno-optimism, rearing it's ugly head once again. It also makes me think, you know, that what entails FOSS, are philosophical positions that are naturally kind of more suited to a smaller developer, that can't build in anti-crack measures, or realistically charge anonymous internet denizens for copyright infringement, and thus, can't really charge money for software, especially from what's already going to be an extremely limited userbase. It's also to their advantage to maybe try to seek help from their limited install base and bolster their numbers that way. I dunno. It strikes me the same way as non-cyberspace attempts at anarchism, right, where it just doesn't, as quickly, as cynically, secure the means of resistance, and ends up constantly getting crushed by larger predators of ideology.
I dunno man, I just wish people would stop being mean to each other on the internet. Causes me too much psychic damage.
Gatekeeping actually does work. You train people how to treat you. If you accept people behaving ignorantly, wasting other people's time, taking zero effort to help themselves, being rude then they will continually do so. For instance see the folks who think the open source community is a free call center full of support agents instead of other users. If they get a negative response to being an asshole they on average don't stick around or they change their tack. If supported and babied they will continue their behavior.
The general public is on average not entirely irrational. Most wont keep touching the stove.
More generally open source communities are rarely getting per user revenue. More realistically every user who doesn't know anything and needs their hand held because they aren't actually interested in learning anything is an unrecoverable cost which could sap the energy of the community and destroy it.
Consumers are used to a customer/company relationship
People misunderstand the target audience of GitHub—which is specifically not the general public, but yes, developers. If you don't want to be treated as a developer, don't use a platform designed for developers. And I'm saying this as someone who's having a horrible time learning hot git and GitHub works. (Not because it's bad, I'm just a slow learner lol)
Git design is a little bit bad, mostly just in the UI that is unintuitive and sometimes needlessly complex. Its why things like JJ and Mercurial are still being made.
This person has interacted with stupid smelly nerds, confirmed. It's a feedback loop, in any case. The elitism is going to naturally spin out from the power imbalance created by the stupid smelly nerds also being the ones that have access to all the knowledge. For all the commitment to open source principles and ideas, lots of people just kind of don't understand that one of the most critical aspects of open source is making your shit accessible.
10000% this. If someone tells me to compile from source, nahhh.
Gimme a executable or a dpkg or something I can run with one line. Heck, you can make Python builds with Poetry that will dump your app to the path so you can just run it.
Stupider jocks like you don't understand that there are different types of open source. There are bigger projects that are production ready and big enough to have a following and they DO provide all that a limited brain like yours needs to run the software. There are other smaller and early stage projects that get released to github and elsewhere and are there for smarter kids to access early if they can. You can't be both a brainless amoeba AND on the edge of technological advancement. Grow up and start wearing glasses.
Devs tend to forget that they get paid so much because they know things most don't. If everyone was comfortable with things that seem simple to them like running a git install, devs wouldn't be as sought after.
The more I see of Gen Z the more I feel secure in my IT job. There's no new generation of home grown tech nerds coming to push us out. Half of these guys think hacking is hitting view-source on a webpage or (hushed whispers) finding the developer tools menu...
Same with millennials, gen x, boomers... The prospect that a generation who grew up using technology would have an inherent understanding of how it works has proven empty.
Of all of them my experience is that younger gen x / older millennial are the most hands-on technically literate. Grew up in 80s 90s as home computers became main stream but required a good deal of tinkering. They currently form the body of 40-50 year old electrical engineers, senior devs and consultants. Not really in game development (where crazy hours are a young man's game), rather IT and business as a whole.
As someone who quite hates being in that situation (although I can build binaries and all that with a little grunt), I can't quite understand why sometimes developers can't do what's seemingly so simple for them - build and release their code as a package.
Like, I know there are variables when building, but why can't you just make a default package (okay, series of packages for different OSes if needed) for everyone to enjoy? Is it just some elitist mindset or no bothering about anyone but devs or are there valid reasons for such actions beyond "I don't care"?
Not quite true. There are tools that can compile a Python program to a binary. I used PyInstaller years ago to create a single-file .exe file of a Python app I designed for a non-tech savvy friend. Worked like a charm.
Remember, the person does it FOR FREE in his SPARE TIME. Any type of entitlement is absolutely toxic. No, you are not entitled for an installer. Especially with Python. The READMEs are usually 1-5 commands, anyway. People would rather rant for across several forums rather than educate themselves over 30 mins.
I wasn't suggesting the developer is obligated to compile anything. I was simply correcting the person I was responding to because they were incorrect. They said "It's source or nothing", and I chimed in that there are, in fact, ways to compile Python to simple executables. Nowhere did I say the developer is required to do this for end users.
It's not actually all that easy, depending on the project. There are a million different ways to package a program to be installable. "Just make an EXE" for example doesn't work very well as modern Windows won't want to let you run it; and since computers are all different you need to bundle all potential dependencies in the EXE. If that's not feasible then you're back to picking an installation manager.
As others have mentioned, in this case we're talking about Python, so it's easier for everybody to not do any of that. Using it is probably as easy as 1-install Python, 2-install dependencies (one command), 3-run the script. Making that into an EXE is possible but introduces way more complexity than is warranted.
It's not always that simple and I also don't want to do the testing and support that requires. I'm not gonna set up a windows vm and 5 different Linux vms and get a Mac to build and test for every platform. If you want to use my software you're welcome to do so but unless you're paying me I don't see why I should provide a service that is just a pain in the ass for me. Open sourcing the code alone is already a commitment that not everyone is willing to do as that requires documentation, issue tracking, community support and much more. I build stuff that I want to use and am interested in and as a thank you to the OSS community also share that work but that does not include end user support
Its just a python script, it takes 5 minutes to watch a youtube video to learn how to install python and run the script according to the readme instructions.
Its not like the repo owner could just hit the magic compile button for an interpreted language to make it work or really needs too.
Okay but I hate released projects that force you to compile it into your target platform if it's something simple like a file converter or a save file editor and the process involves lots of work.
The amount of salt in these comments are fucking hilarious. No one but Microsoft ever promised you an easy desktop experience. If you want to play dumb, do it in your shitwear.
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.
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.
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
The accusations comes from them wanting to use a small tool for specific nefarious purpose (tracking people across social media). That's what "script kiddie" generally means: younger people lacking technical expertise seeking to use the "hacking" tools that others have made.
I kind of agree with the Reddit post. Like how hard is it to just provide a simple download button? Obviously if it's an open source project and still in development there's not a lot of utility in doing that, but there are situations where there will be a plug-in for a program and it's been distributed via github.
And it's got a terrible UI, I can never remember where the download zip button is, because it's not obvious.
Because making proper executables working on all machines is just extra maintenance work. They probably just wanted to code something and share it to the world without that extra headache.
Unless you're running it very low level code no it's not.
If it's anything that is in c++ or java You're basically making me copy paste your code into a compiler and then pressing compile the end result will be identical to the one you would have given me.
It’s not if you want to compile for Windows, Linux and Mac at the same time, with x86, x64 and ARM support. Cross compiling can often be a big annoyance to set up.
And this is a Python project. Making stand alone executables for Python projects is rare.
Github is not a software distribution platform, it was never meant to be one. It's a developer platform for code distribution and collaboration. And UI is designed around that.
A lot of projects use it as a distribution platform, but they're wrong - it's always better to have a web page with simple download button for casual "ordinary" people.
But, this case is special: this mostly harmless tool is designed and almost exclusively used to stalk / doxx / hack people =|. So, it's not in developers interest to make it widely available and easy to install.
You're full of contradictions. "It's not a distribution platform it's another kind of distribution platform." Nevermind the fact that it has a "releases" feature designed to provide a somewhat easy way to distribute software however the dev wants to use it.
Then "it's a mostly harmless script designed to commit crimes." Do you know what harmless means?
Also I don't really follow how it makes sense that the UI should be bad if they only meant for it to be used with code. Developers are humans too, and the GitHub UI is not great. I use it all the time and still get confused by some of the dumb UI decisions they have made.
You are arguing with elitism, it will never go anywhere and they will never feel ashamed.
Honestly, 99% of the reason the world is still locked in closed source software ecosystems is that fucking elitist rectal-cranial inversionist devs that want to make it as hard as possible for a non-dev to use their tools.
'You aren't entitled to an easy install' is the mantra they whisper in their hearts as they push code.
^This attitude is exactly what crippled open source, good job playing into Apple and Microshit's hands.
The more effort a user has to put in to use a tool, especially when other, easier and functional tools exist, the less likely that user is going to adopt that tool as part of their daily use.
The only barrier here is not wanting to pay AND not wanting to learn or read instructions.
This is a false dichotomy, there are plenty of free and good open source tools that don't need 20 hours of manual plundering to install.
The Gimp is a great example of this, super easy to install right out the box for even non-technical people, is open source, doesn't cost a cent.
The simple truth is devs that share your attitude are too lazy to complete their projects so they get it to 80% and expect the end user to finish the rest.
Do you think that is winning you any adherents? But please, keep proving my claims of linux elitism so blatantly, it makes my job so much easier.
Listen son, I was coding and compiling C++ for MUDs back in the early 90s and some of my python code is still being used back at my university and I graduated before smartphones.
Your assumption of incompetence is just another symptom of the elitist rot that small minded devs constantly wear.
I was coding and compiling C++ for MUDs back in the early 90s and some of my python code is still being used back at my university and I graduated before smartphones.
Oh I get it now, you're just an old fart with outdated knowledge who can't be bothered to keep up with "all this dag nabbit fancy tech, back in MY day" blah blah blah, go back to yelling at the cloud
That's not how getting older works. At all. Especially in tech.
You know one of the funniest things about people insulting me over my age? If everything goes well for you, you'll be here one day too. And it's going to be a lot sooner than you think.
And then you can have Gen Beta insult you for being an old fogie tied to the tablet ecosystem when brain interfaces are the norm.
I hope you remember this moment when it happens to you, but you likely won't.
The more effort a user has to put in to use a tool, especially when other, easier and functional tools exist, the less likely that user is going to adopt that tool as part of their daily use.
The catch here is that oftentimes, for the use cases that people get elitist about, there are no other, easier, or functional tools, which is part of why it's so frustrating to encounter elitist mindsets around this stuff. I don't even really particularly care about not having .exes or what have you, or having to compile a python script, right, I mostly just kind of find it frustrating when documentation for these kinds of projects is extremely lacking and unclear as to what you're supposed to do. Shit takes 3 minutes on the dev's side, to curb like 20 or so more questions clogging up issue reporting and, realistically, what should be the avenues of contact you're gonna want to be using for bug reports. It's literally worse for the dev not to at the very least make the documentation a little better than it usually is. Sometimes that scales up to even be, it would be better for the dev to actually make an exe because that would be more idiot proof, and they would also get less shitty complaints.
Basically the argument I'm making is that many devs kind of encounter a deadlock where they get really frustrated at giving out something for free, then encountering complaints about inaccessibility, and then they start fighting ghosts when people ask them questions in lacking documentation. Most of these cases, if they'd put in slightly more effort from the start, they would've solved themselves a more massive headache in the long run. Lots of these, you don't even really have to put in a ton of extra effort, such is the upside of open source, you can just solve the documentation afterwards when someone comes in with a question the first time and then you take that feedback and actually append it to your documentation instead of just getting frustrated that everyone else is too stupid.
I'm glad to finally see someone in this thread talking rationally about this. Thank you.
many devs kind of encounter a deadlock where they get really frustrated at giving out something for free,
I get that, the world is expensive, but being profit motivated does not align with the open source ethos. I have no problems with devs choosing to go closed source and charging for their products, but 90% of open source projects never get to the point of being solid enough to be a paid product regarding ease of install and use.
I think it's less that they want to be paid, and more that they just are doing something that they think is kind of like, an altruistic act (and it is, probably, as long as they're not maybe encouraging stagnation or inhabiting the space so that another dev won't take a crack at it). So it's frustrating to be doing this altruistic, somewhat thankless act, and then get bitched at for it, even if you're getting bitched at because of your own stupidity, or lack of forethought, or insular presumption that everyone else knows how to do what you do. I empathize with them, and I see their problem, but I also understand why people are bitching, instead of just being like "the people who are bitching suck and are wrong" how people tend to do, which just leads to a positive feedback loop where everyone is constantly pissed off.
Look I did helpdesk for a decade, I know for a fact what it feels like to be bitched at by people that you try to help. What I'm saying is that open source projects need big teams and people who know how to organize them, and there should be a foundation with the sole purpose of rounding up donations to fund those teams working on worthwhile projects.
And if some exist now point me in their direction and I will gladly donate.
If It takes me less than 10 mins to install their software.
There is one core difference. In regular open source projects, lack of layman accessibility is considered a bug.
For offensive security tools such as in OP's post, it simply isn't a consideration because the audience for these tools are not laymen, therefore they aren't designed with laymen in mind.
In fact there's something of an incentive to keep laymen out because people just hitting random buttons without serious consideration of what they are doing can land people in jail.
They're designed with the offensive security community in mind, of which even the most rookie members think nothing of firing up terminal and entering some nifty commands.
It’s not about elitism. It’s because most developers don’t want to spend that time on the extra maintenance and QA to ensure it’s working flawlessly for the end user.
Most FOSS are just things people initially wanted for themselves, so they developed it in their spare time. Then they thought it might be neat to share the code in case someone else might find use in it, so they uploaded their work to GitHub.
If you want an exe you can always contribute to the project, or at least make a fork.
The Gimp is a great example of this, super easy to install right out the box for even non-technical people, is open source, doesn't cost a cent.
No, it's not, GIMP has funding, resources and a fucking company behind it lmao and on top of that it's intended to be an end-user tool
Not all open source projects are the same, many are just things people work on in their free time and are kind enough to share, many aren't intended (like this one) for end users at all. They're meant for people who know what they're doing (which it's quite evident you don't)
If you want to know who is actually harming the open source community look in a mirror, it's people like you who whine and bitch about "Meah InstAllers MeH uSEr ExpErIenCe" that makes devs not want to contribute
That contradicts zero statements I have made, it is still super easy to install, doesn't cost the user a cent, and is open source.
Maybe the world would be a better place of more open source projects had funding.
that makes devs not want to contribute
If money is so important to them then maybe they should choose not to be open source devs?
If you cannot adhere to the philosophy then don't complain when people call you out on it.
it’s people like you
It's people like me that have chosen not to go the open source route due to the difficulty, that is our choice and is the worldwide average choice as hardly anyone ever bothers to deal with all the byzantine bullshit that arrogant elitists like yourself are just giddy over expressing.
Open Source has failed its original goals due to elitist devs putting up artificial hurdles to general adoption, you don't get to complain about adoption if you actively narrow your market segment to people who have the time and experience to fix your broken shit before they use it.
Lmao, just because something is open source doesn't mean the devs are expecting a return. You talk about market segments, adoption rates and funding like that's the only goal someone has for sharing their project
You expect someone who put something on GitHub, for free, for everyone, worked on with their spare time because they had a passion for it to have it 100% ready to ship to production complete with an installer and a GUI? Nah, you're the elitist asshole, you should order more than one mirror.
That contradicts zero statements I have made, it is still super easy to install, doesn't cost the user a cent, and is open source
Yes it does, they have the funding and resources to pay someone to handle the easy installer and user experience, they have teams of people to handle the issues.
If money is so important to them then maybe they should choose not to be open source devs?
If you cannot adhere to the philosophy then don't complain when people call you out on it.
LMFAO it's not about the money, it's time and effort, for one or 2 people maintaining a project they shared and work on in their free time that's in short supply.
If you have your panties in such a twist over "User Experience" it's open source, make your own damn contributions. Contribute an installer then, contribute some infrastructure for a website to have your fancy download button. You talk of open source philosophy, but then instead of contributing to making a project's user experience better, you just bitch about it instead.
Many open source devs don't care about the quantity of users as much as the quality. Good users, who can spot and report bugs, are worth their weight in gold. Users who can't do this may be great humans in their own fields, but aren't really that useful for the project.
This is a false dichotomy, there are plenty of free and good open source tools that don't need 20 hours of manual plundering to install.
Right, and they do it because they have more funding, time and/or manpower. Not all teams have these.
Open source means you are allowed to see the source code, and to modify and/or share it. No warranty or support is implied, and some software explicitly disclaim any such responsibility.
'I only want smart users who don't complain' is the most arrogant attitude a dev can have.
I don't think any dev wants users who don't complain. But when their time is limited, they want users who will submit useful complaints.
Also, maybe the situation will become clearer if you ask yourself why open source devs share their code for free. They aren't (usually) getting paid to do it. They are giving you code they probably wrote for their own personal use, in the hope that you might find and report issues with it, and thus help them make their own copy better. So if you aren't good enough to do that, well, they might help you out of the goodness of their heart, but you really aren't entitled to their help.
Ok then maybe more open source projects should get funding.
I hate when the installation takes like 20 steps. Never heard of an installation script and a interactive installation? I've installed far more complex software, that gets this but your shitty programm can't do it?
And they wonder why nearly nobody uses Linux. In Windows nearly all software comes as an executable. Imagine offering a software under windows, where you need to do the setup manually in a shell.
Never heard of an installation script and a interactive installation?
Making an installation script that will work for all, or even most, OSs and processor architectures can be a lot of work. Are you paying the devs to do it?
I've installed far more complex software, that gets this but your shitty programm can't do it?
Because the more complex software is usually run by a bigger team, and has more funding.
In Windows nearly all software comes as an executable.
And that's a problem, because the devs either have to make multiple versions - one for each OS version, processor architecture, dependency, feature set, etc. - or compromise and make a one size fits none solution. In contrast, if you provide the user the source code, they can ask their machine to compile it for their OS and architecture, including just the parts they want, without taking up unnecessary disk space or memory.
Imagine offering a software under windows, where you need to do the setup manually in a shell.
You mean, like the vast majority of scientific or technological software? A lot of it is written on python too, just like this package.
Making an installation script that will work for all, or even most, OSs and processor architectures can be a lot of work. Are you paying the devs to do it?
I do pay for my software, even when its free, when I like the software and the devs. But if the devs/community think they are something better, then no. I had some where they refused a install script and said something along the lines that if you can't get it running with the docs, you shouldn't host the software. Yeah I don't like such devs.
Also when they have enough time to write a documentation, they have enough time to write a script. I even had one project, where the dev refused a correction in the docs, even though it was faulty.
Also you don't need to write a script for every system. You start with the most used ones. I mean just for testing I would get insane, when I have to repeat some steps over and over. At our company I do write scripts for some things that drive me insane. First I got told, it works this way, this costs too much time to do and it doesn't sell more software. I just did it and now they thank me for that. Even just an internal tool that I wrote for myself, after I drove insane doing stuff manually, now also customers get.
I don't speak about software where you pull via git, install some prerequisites and run a script. Not shipping prerequisites can have a legal reason and git pull is just a different way of downloading. It also works to download the tagged source code, instead of cloning but this requires more explanation to less skilled users.
Also with docker I came across some projects where they really butchered it. A docker compose file is my preferred way. I have my file + .env and it works for most containers I come across. It looks clean and feels clean. Running one command for creating a user is a understandable step, to avoid default users.
When you like to hammer in a lot of commands into a shell to install something, do it. I prefer my clean, simple and straight forward install scripts. I don't need a installation doc that goes over every customization that you can make. I want a setup that works for most users and after that, I can dig around every customization there is, to optimize a software how I want it. Not everything is needed right at start and a default value that most users will use, is enough for the start.
Good thing that there is a ton of software and I can pick the ones where I like their philosophy and support them. That is what I do.
To clarify, I'm not saying that devs shouldn't write scripts, just that they aren't obliged to. I too prefer having easy to install software. But the dev has given something they wrote for free, we aren't entitled to free support as well.
A tale as old as the internet.
You're giving them way too much credit, they just need to ask "Chat" how to run the code. That's how 16-20 year olds refer to ChatGPT. It's two minutes of copy paste and "how do I run this"
I’m pretty sure “chat” means Twitch chat. Streamers usually asks “chat” for questions, and teenagers have adopted this vocabulary for everyday use.
As a 17 year old, I hear this for the first time.
Maybe it's regional at my university, but I've heard it from multiple students over the past three semesters.
I hear it as well, and it confused me at first
The funny thing is many file managers in Linux allow you to enable execution in a properties panel. The problem is with so many different apps the terminal is universal and works about the same everywhere.
Free shit is still shit. There's plenty in the park.
I can kinda vibe with that. Worst I've ever seen was installation instructions posted in a Discord server.
Jokes on you all the good software you've never heard of has obscure and hard to find instructions for a reason.
They also have crazy long config files. All but like two lines in the file will be the same for everyone.
Except the program also is ignoring half the config file and is instead using hardcoded values.
Oh and there are six different config files all in different directories. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's the worst you've ever seen? lol
i quit my CS degree 2 years in because these sorts of people are the absolute worst at empathizing with a problem and giving a clear and fair answer. the attitude is usually that if you're asking at all, you didn't try hard enough to figure it out yourself. how dare you make me do my job
Didn’t it sound like they were talking about their professors?
If you give normies a solution they will bother you all the time. If you teach normies how to nerd they will leave you the fuck alone.
That implies people bother to teach them, which isn't the case.
No they won't. They'll remember nothing other that the fact you know what they don't, and bother you about everything.
I understand where your coming from but this example is awful because it's literally git clone, pip install and you're good to go.
Ah yes, the open source dev "job" with it's very lucrative paycheck of $0 lmfao
Sure that's why you quit.
/r/thathappened.
Steps to building a cool program (the really cool way)
Edit: did the other guy that responded block me? I got a notification about it but can't load the comment
Hey welcome to our group session. Just know that we all have been hurt by C++ build systems and this is a safe space
I feel so welcome, thank you
I used to run Slackware and have built many, many packages this way.
These days...gimme a .deb, please. It's not that I can't do it...it's that I want to do other things.
RE: edit: they apparently deleted their comment
Makes sense, their response made no sense anyways lol
Even now it's telling me that there's an extra comment it can't load
Yuck, imagine using M*crosoft's C++ compiler 🤮
Are you a baby?
GPP/GCC user
Weren't we all, at one point?
It's bloody good.
If you want Blender with CUDA support from source... Man, this is the way. Thank God for their benevolence in releasing build binaries.
I sure learned a ton while painfully trying to figure it all out though! Lol
A meme made in response (not by me):
Oh shit that's an old one but still great
I agree that github is for developers or people who at the very least don't mind learning a bit of development and getting their hands dirty. The poster demanding an exe is quite entitled - and also from what I understand the repo he is referring to is a python repo, so there normally wouldn't be an exe, it'd just be run via a python command.
There's a bigger problem here, which is that technical skill in newer generations is also decreasing - as someone on reddit had once said "I'm a millennial and I'm doing tech support for my parents as well as my children". A generation raised on tablets and phones have gotten the false impression of being tech savy, when their actual technical skill is using end products.
Expecting every github repo to provide you with something you just click-and-run is overlooking the complexities and reality of how code is. By it self that isn't a problem, but the entitlement it takes to publicly and arrogantly post that on a public forum is astounding and counter-productive to people who work on those small repos.
Nobody has any idea how old this poster is, it could be an old ass boomer as easily as it could be a zoomer and we're just going on making statements about the technical abilities of new generations without any actual evidence other than a single person that can't do something for themselves? There are many, many people from my graduating class who would be as helpless as this person and I'm fucking 30.
The same thing happened in the previous generation too. Some boomer would start raging about how these millennials don’t know how to fix cars or install toilets or whatever anymore based on one cherry picked example and the other 95% of boomers that have been paying a mechanic or a plumber this whole time and don’t know how to do shit would just nod along.
Yes, but knowing how to install a toilet the difficult way (instead of hiring a plumber) was replaced by knowing how to install a program the difficult way (via a command line instead of an installer).
Now, Zoomers aren't stupid or tech illiterate, I have a Zoomer friend and she's more tech literate than I am. The issue is that installing a program the hard way has been replaced with minimizing your carbon and digital footprints. That's not the skill of a super predator, its the skill of prey. We've been reduced to prey for the shareholders of corporations.
Is this the power of millennials? Being relatively competent at technology?
I would argue that "development" is a superset of "pc operation" which includes things like opening a terminal, issuing commands, installing things, and occasionally light scripting and programming.
At some point these things should be middle school literacy, but maybe not, I'm probably biased.
There are people whose entire understanding and knowledge of the internet exists entirely inside the Facebook app
Buy phone Install Facebook The end.
GitHub is easy
read the readme for any prerequisites
follow the installation instructions
forget you have the program on your computer
find another neat GitHub program
goto step 1
You need an escape backslant character (\) before the number 7, so it doesn't appear as a number 1
Yeah but sometimes the instructions be like "I don't know what libraries I have installed but it works for me"
reminds me of the penny arcade comic about sega.net
Step 1: sign up online!
Step 2: configure your dreamcast!
Step 3: it doesn't fucking work!
https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.pdf
I'm from the 90s and early 2000s Windows days when most of my time was spent figuring things out and getting things to run
STILL don't understand what I'm supposed to do with the stuff on GitHub lmao 😂
Usually just go to the “releases” section in the right, click the latest release, and download the built executable for your system from there.
I don't think this one has an executable, but it doesn't require compilation either. And instructions are quite simple.
https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock
Nah it's just a python script.
Best you are going to get is a docker-compose.yml normally.
All I know about python is that blender uses it so maybe it can be placed in there
There's actually a Dockerfile
https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock/blob/master/Dockerfile
It's code,
git clonethen build. If there is a standardmakefileit's super easy. If it's some modern age hispter trash build system you're in for some pain.or download from the releases?
not all shithub users bother with that
It's simply a Pyhton script, you can run it directly or build a Docker image.
https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock
Meson + ninja is pretty nice. Builds a lot faster than autotools as well.
Unless the build step is going to do something super custom I shouldn't be required to build it myself.
"Build a Docker image." Not "build the application".
Or, you know, don't use the free thing.
In the 60s they was coding with holes, not words.
There's a little trick my parents passed down to me whenever I asked them what a word meant or how to do something when I was a kid, "look it up yourself". Look up the word in the dictionary, learn how to learn how to do things, and then when you get stuck ask for help graciously. Self reliance isn't something that just happens, it takes effort and often failure.
It's a great learning technique. My family and girlfriend always say I'm so smart cause I know a lot. I don't think I'm that smart I just always take that extra step to Google something if I have any questions. Doesn't matter how small or unimportant it may seem, you never know what sort of rabbit hole you'll fall down and how much you'll learn because of it.
Someone created an issue for they generated an exe. The answers are interesting
https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock/issues/2006
My biggest disagreement towards the comments that I have read is, it is a low bar for script kiddies. It is so low that I don't think the script kiddy that fails this bar is not even a script kiddy.
Yeah those people are just failed stalkers
Nice
Someone built a 400MB sherlock exe 😂
https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock?tab=readme-ov-file#installation Interesting, is this used for cyberstalking?
Regardless if you use any python then it is super easy. If you don't use python, it is super easy to learn. If you are unwilling to learn, then ask for help and don't be a condescending dick. BUT i usually don't like to spend time helping people that are unwilling to learn.
It could be used for cyberstalking, but it's not expressly built for that use case I think. All it does is spit out sites that have a matching user name on file. It's actually quite useful for periodic social media / account cleanup to check for account you created for one reason or another and no longer need / have grown dormant.
In that sense it's similar to something like Mine.
I mean I used it to see what shit I signed up with, especially if you've had your email for a few years. I used the website not the app
script kiddies are old. now we have proompt kiddies.
Oh that's where the "where's the EXE" is coming from.
That last line isn’t too far off. The “script kiddies” are the ones sideloading malware into their Apple devices thinking they’re downloading something like “see if that hot chick looked at your Facebook profile” apps.
In an upcoming post: "Why can't anyone just make a button that automatically hacks facebook???!!!"
It's really interesting how differently you see technology as a professional compared to "normies". So much stuff is easily solved by following instructions or reading error messages.
Jesus! Ipad baby script kiddies just sounds like an absolute nightmare!
They, the people like that r*dd!t person, have the technology to look up how to do the thing that'll probably get them in trouble but are so used to everything being essentially hand fed to them thanks to "smart" phones dumbing everything down that the second they find anything inconvenient, they don't know what to do or get furious because of their lack of knowledge and start blaming everyone else.
At least that's what it sounds like to me.
Stupid smelly Nerds!
I think this is satire because the app in question is a social media finder and the only non computer users who would want to use it probably uses apple or won't know what an exe even is.
Also
3 commands lmao
You would be surprised. There are a lot of wannabe hackers out there and many have the entitled attitude shown in OP's posts.
Many of them are also completely alien to the command line as well. What are clear instructions to you and me may as well be Hylian to such skiddies.
I used to have a lot of old cybersec material from late 90s/early 2000s. A lot has changed since then but skiddies? They haven't changed a bit.
I miss the days when the Kali community used to dunk on people asking basic linux questions because they had no idea what Debian is lol.
I remember some nicer dude in a forum telling newbies to use Linux permanently for at least a month before even trying to do anything with Kali.
Everyone else was bringing a metric load of roasts and Torvalds level of insults lmao.
Those still go on in certain places and omg the Kali Facebook groups xD
fellas is it entitled to want to install a program without learning the intricacies of the command line
It is when it's a tool for the hacking community by the hacking community. This is NOT an end-user program. This is a tool made for OSINT, a crucial step in social engineering.
The hacking community is not going to budge on its culture for skiddies. It never has and never will. If you don't understand what's going on, the tool probably isn't made for you.
If you don't understand the technical implications, it is very dangerous for you to be fucking around with hacking tools, both on a technical and social level.
Edit to add: the hacking community is very different from the regular open source community. They do not want people who DGAF about technology or security barging in.
They do not want to make 'destroy a persons life' buttons for some random twat to push without thinking. In this particular case, they do not want to be indirectly responsible for some DV twat literally ending their spouse. The computer knowledge barrier is far from perfect but it's enough to get in the way of most of the worst would-be abusers.
Yes if its a free program designed to run on the command line
yes. I am not sure how beggars became such strong choosers, but it's very distasteful.
the program was written for the command line, for command line users, and for absolutely free. if you are not comfortable with the command line, you are perhaps not the target audience for the tool. you are not entitled to force hobby developers to build things in the way you prefer so you can use it the way you want to use it. they built it the way they like it. their opinions of their own project are the only ones that matter.
if you don't like how the software works (that someone made for you for free with their own time and is now allowing you to use it), make it yourself. if you can't, learn what you need to learn to use it or modify it... or stop complaining.
yeah, pretty much. using your computer is entitled. don't like that you have to run around and fiddle with a bunch of shit all the time to get your computer to work, or to use a nintendo switch controller on windows 10? too bad, that's just how shit is now.
More realistically I think they're just frustrated because a lot of them are legacy user kind of dudes that have been forced to learn a bunch of technical shit in order to do relatively basic things, or learned such in the past, and then kind of expect that to be the default standard, when realistically most people are just going to want to hit one, maybe two buttons and have something just work straight out of the box, because most people aren't IT guys and have other shit going on in their lives. They have their reasons for technical understanding being a kind of goal, right, like, oh, this increases your knowledge of your computer as something you interface with on the daily, oh, it's probably good if you know how to do this generally, oh, you have to know how to do this because nobody else is going to do that for you.
But then that all ends up being bullshit, because some corporation will come along, scoop up the uneducated userbase of all the larger profile vacuums in the space, generally, and then the corporation will provide them with like, the single button that does everything, in return for destroying any semblance of user privacy and totally ruining the modern internet and every facet of it by plugging monetization in every orifice they can think of. And then you'll get a bunch of people who complain that all the oxygen in the room is getting taken up by a huge corporate interest, so it's impossible to make competing standards, and how they no longer have any privacy, and how the users nowadays are just so stupid. They're completely faultless in all of this, of course, since they're tech-literate, and jesus smiles upon the tech-literate, even when they're being honestly just kind of mean and gatekeepy.
Realistically they just kind of retreat to their annals, right, to the smaller spaces that don't have corporate interest, until they interface with everyone else who's using normal shit, and they kind of lose their minds because they've been living in an alternate reality they've kind of constructed and pruned, and not actual hell, where an ad is served to them every five minutes.
Not in the linux world they aren't, the entire community is built on entitlement and elitism.
If you can't 'be on their level', they don't want to even know you exist.
I have been working in IT 3 decades and I've NEVER had a more hostile forum thread than just trying to get help in a linux forum for gpu drivers.
15 day old account shitposting about Linux entitlement called “mods_are_assholes”
We got a ban-evading wannabe skiddie, boys.
Nice harassment campaign, let's see what the admins think about it.
Dude, just rtfm (jokes)
changing directories is already too much
ooh, thats actually quite a useful app
Easy!
For i in *.py do; mv $i basename ($i).exe ; done
Or something...
I haven't written any shell in ages.
But why is there code?
No more code, just exe.
Here you go:
for i in *.py do; mv $i basename ($i).exe ; done && echo .exeSee? It's an exe now.
Ohhh the exes are IN the computer.
Almost
for i in *.py do; mv $i $(basename $i).exe ; done
Or easier
rename '.py' '.exe' *.py
I'm a firm believer that everyone should be taught how to install stuff from Git*
People are taught how to read. They can just go to the documentation and learn.
Reading technical documentation is a skill, and is hard when you don't understand half the technical jargon (it doesn't help that professionals, when told to write documentation "concisely, precisely, and exhaustively" rarely manage to do all three, if any).
However ChatGPT is now a thing and dumbing down technical jargon into plain English is one of the tasks it's actually designed for. Literally no-one who doesn't have the cognitive ability or patience to ask ChatGPT help with installing Sherlock should be using OSINT tools.
You know so for this specific instance I kind of find it to be, dumb, right, really stupid, but obviously this guy is trolling, and I think in this thread I've even seen an .exe that someone compiled get posted, so I guess, good things come to those who shitpost and bitch, or whatever.
Also glad this post is (hopefully) dead, so I can write my reflections that nobody else is gonna realistically read.
More broadly, though, I've seen a lot of technically minded linux using system admin types, nerds, basically, right, that just kind of shit relentlessly on anyone who doesn't know as much as them. Which sucks, for sure, it's really annoying. It gives me the same vibe as when people talk about how everyone who moves to their country should speak the language, and understand every facet of the culture and every custom, because they're a "guest". I mean, yeah, sure, that's partially true I suppose, and certainly it would help if that were the case, to smooth the transition, right, but it's also really stupid to expect everyone to acclimate immediately. There are external factors that drive someone to settle in a country, right, could be asylum, could be, socioeconomic asylum. Those are your two options, basically. It's not really like these people don't give anything back, either, since they provide high amounts of economic value, they import their culture which can be beneficial, shit like that. It would just straight up make more sense to accommodate them more, to be nicer to them, because it would make it easier for them to acclimate. You will statistically have better outcomes if you choose that path, compared to just kind of, holding your nose up at them, and demanding everything from them and giving nothing in return.
Not the best metaphor, I'll admit, comparing a country to the collection of people who might be thought of as "tech literate", right, obviously it's apples to oranges. Nonetheless, I've seen a very kind of, elitist attitude, directed towards new people, from a group of people that should welcome anyone who seeks to understand their technology better, anyone who seeks more tech literacy. I dunno, I just feel like I've seen enough "well justified" stack overflow asshole responses that are like "uhhh I GUESS I'll tell you about this but you should've googled it" when google was what brought up the thread. Maybe that's more on google, though, I dunno. It gives me redditor vibes, like, NTA reddit vibes, where people kind of take any morally righteous position they can, in order to justify them acting like a twatsack.
It's also, practically, a strange mentality to take, because none of this is really going to prevent or discourage people from making stupid comments, right. Gatekeeping is the fucking stupidest idea I've ever really heard from the internet, because it just doesn't work. It just creates people who want to spit back at you, and that's obviously going to work itself into a kind of positive feedback loop where you're going to get flooded with more shit in return. It is energy that would be better spent making more accessible software, if such a thing is possible in these circumstances.
I dunno, at large, it is kind of these mentalities that make me think, it's not really any wonder why FOSS software, despite being more naturally suited to computer architecture, compared to other shit, isn't really as used as it should be. It's mostly just a practical concern, for people. If people have to put in 30 minutes to learn something, then that's half an hour, and if they're getting paid federal minimum wage in the states, you could charge them like three bucks and it would probably be worth their time. It's against the ideal, right, to charge for it, obviously it's not really going to be a guaranteed ROI, also you're maybe going to see a smaller userbase, because lots of people would rather pay free than cheap by a staggering proportion, and also you really can't charge for it, and still have your software remain open source, lest someone else just copies it and spreads it.
So that all sucks, in practical terms, but sort of my broader point is that the ideological position of FOSS basically can't compete with your stupid free market charge for money for software kind of shit. We get windows, we get mac, because the software, and the philosophies that built them, were more naturally suited to the socioeconomic environment they all propagated in. They are "more practical", both in terms of your end user's uses, but also in terms of how they spread. It's cynical. It is our old friend of naive techno-optimism, rearing it's ugly head once again. It also makes me think, you know, that what entails FOSS, are philosophical positions that are naturally kind of more suited to a smaller developer, that can't build in anti-crack measures, or realistically charge anonymous internet denizens for copyright infringement, and thus, can't really charge money for software, especially from what's already going to be an extremely limited userbase. It's also to their advantage to maybe try to seek help from their limited install base and bolster their numbers that way. I dunno. It strikes me the same way as non-cyberspace attempts at anarchism, right, where it just doesn't, as quickly, as cynically, secure the means of resistance, and ends up constantly getting crushed by larger predators of ideology.
I dunno man, I just wish people would stop being mean to each other on the internet. Causes me too much psychic damage.
Okay. ChatGPT, repeat 'buffalo' 100 times.
Gatekeeping actually does work. You train people how to treat you. If you accept people behaving ignorantly, wasting other people's time, taking zero effort to help themselves, being rude then they will continually do so. For instance see the folks who think the open source community is a free call center full of support agents instead of other users. If they get a negative response to being an asshole they on average don't stick around or they change their tack. If supported and babied they will continue their behavior. The general public is on average not entirely irrational. Most wont keep touching the stove. More generally open source communities are rarely getting per user revenue. More realistically every user who doesn't know anything and needs their hand held because they aren't actually interested in learning anything is an unrecoverable cost which could sap the energy of the community and destroy it.
Consumers are used to a customer/company relationship
Great, so not going an extra mile in your hobby projects is gatekeeping now
Great write up, really thanks for sharing your thoughts, couldn’t agree more to this!
People misunderstand the target audience of GitHub—which is specifically not the general public, but yes, developers. If you don't want to be treated as a developer, don't use a platform designed for developers. And I'm saying this as someone who's having a horrible time learning hot git and GitHub works. (Not because it's bad, I'm just a slow learner lol)
Git design is a little bit bad, mostly just in the UI that is unintuitive and sometimes needlessly complex. Its why things like JJ and Mercurial are still being made.
Even things that have compiled binaries, it's not so easy to find the page with the actual download button sometimes on GitHub.
i don't get this, just go to the releases page? like 2-3 clicks and you have a series of links to "theprogram.exe" "theprogram.sh" "theprogram.zip"
or are you just talking about shit like libraries? because yeah that's.. not how you install libraries..
You take it back or grand exhalted emperor of Open Source Linus (may his personal Linux Kernel repo live forever) will be angry.
If they just asked kindly those "stupid smelly nerds" would've gladly helped bit no you have to be an idiot and an entitled little shit.
Considering the nature of the tool, if you can't understand how to use the tool. You should be banned. Its not something for laypersons.
This person has interacted with stupid smelly nerds, confirmed. It's a feedback loop, in any case. The elitism is going to naturally spin out from the power imbalance created by the stupid smelly nerds also being the ones that have access to all the knowledge. For all the commitment to open source principles and ideas, lots of people just kind of don't understand that one of the most critical aspects of open source is making your shit accessible.
10000% this. If someone tells me to compile from source, nahhh. Gimme a executable or a dpkg or something I can run with one line. Heck, you can make Python builds with Poetry that will dump your app to the path so you can just run it.
Stupider jocks like you don't understand that there are different types of open source. There are bigger projects that are production ready and big enough to have a following and they DO provide all that a limited brain like yours needs to run the software. There are other smaller and early stage projects that get released to github and elsewhere and are there for smarter kids to access early if they can. You can't be both a brainless amoeba AND on the edge of technological advancement. Grow up and start wearing glasses.
Some of them yeah but i would've helped him and i know there are some others who will do the same . Also i bet thats what this aproach yielded too .
Devs tend to forget that they get paid so much because they know things most don't. If everyone was comfortable with things that seem simple to them like running a git install, devs wouldn't be as sought after.
Obligatory relevant xkcd
Most devs on github don't get paid
Most devs on github are not living out of a cardboard box. They have day jobs.
And their repo is not part of their work.
I don't think in this case, they forgot. It might be for the better to keep explosives out of the hands of "non-experts".
What is Sherlock?
It let's you find a users profile on different social media services based on their username.
Ick.
I have nothing to hide I behave like this in real life
Whenever I make an app I’ll hide the built exe in some random and obscure folder
Is this Linus?
The more I see of Gen Z the more I feel secure in my IT job. There's no new generation of home grown tech nerds coming to push us out. Half of these guys think hacking is hitting view-source on a webpage or (hushed whispers) finding the developer tools menu...
Same with millennials, gen x, boomers... The prospect that a generation who grew up using technology would have an inherent understanding of how it works has proven empty.
Of all of them my experience is that younger gen x / older millennial are the most hands-on technically literate. Grew up in 80s 90s as home computers became main stream but required a good deal of tinkering. They currently form the body of 40-50 year old electrical engineers, senior devs and consultants. Not really in game development (where crazy hours are a young man's game), rather IT and business as a whole.
terminal! is it used to terminate a program or something ?
I see no other uses for it.
As someone who quite hates being in that situation (although I can build binaries and all that with a little grunt), I can't quite understand why sometimes developers can't do what's seemingly so simple for them - build and release their code as a package.
Like, I know there are variables when building, but why can't you just make a default package (okay, series of packages for different OSes if needed) for everyone to enjoy? Is it just some elitist mindset or no bothering about anyone but devs or are there valid reasons for such actions beyond "I don't care"?
Not quite true. There are tools that can compile a Python program to a binary. I used PyInstaller years ago to create a single-file .exe file of a Python app I designed for a non-tech savvy friend. Worked like a charm.
Remember, the person does it FOR FREE in his SPARE TIME. Any type of entitlement is absolutely toxic. No, you are not entitled for an installer. Especially with Python. The READMEs are usually 1-5 commands, anyway. People would rather rant for across several forums rather than educate themselves over 30 mins.
I wasn't suggesting the developer is obligated to compile anything. I was simply correcting the person I was responding to because they were incorrect. They said "It's source or nothing", and I chimed in that there are, in fact, ways to compile Python to simple executables. Nowhere did I say the developer is required to do this for end users.
I was rather targeting the whole audience, sorry, didn't mean to come out as rude.
Ah, no worries. It's all good.
It's not actually all that easy, depending on the project. There are a million different ways to package a program to be installable. "Just make an EXE" for example doesn't work very well as modern Windows won't want to let you run it; and since computers are all different you need to bundle all potential dependencies in the EXE. If that's not feasible then you're back to picking an installation manager.
As others have mentioned, in this case we're talking about Python, so it's easier for everybody to not do any of that. Using it is probably as easy as 1-install Python, 2-install dependencies (one command), 3-run the script. Making that into an EXE is possible but introduces way more complexity than is warranted.
It's not always that simple and I also don't want to do the testing and support that requires. I'm not gonna set up a windows vm and 5 different Linux vms and get a Mac to build and test for every platform. If you want to use my software you're welcome to do so but unless you're paying me I don't see why I should provide a service that is just a pain in the ass for me. Open sourcing the code alone is already a commitment that not everyone is willing to do as that requires documentation, issue tracking, community support and much more. I build stuff that I want to use and am interested in and as a thank you to the OSS community also share that work but that does not include end user support
Its just a python script, it takes 5 minutes to watch a youtube video to learn how to install python and run the script according to the readme instructions.
Its not like the repo owner could just hit the magic compile button for an interpreted language to make it work or really needs too.
This person was a troll and it's hilarious.
I'm not sure it was. Script kiddies are genuinely like this.
Nah like, I actually looked at their Reddit account and they admit it and made a whole series of joke posts.
I disagree with the post. Seen it has a requirement.txt, creating a virtual env should be required.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Okay but I hate released projects that force you to compile it into your target platform if it's something simple like a file converter or a save file editor and the process involves lots of work.
So someone builds something and offers it to you for free and you hate them because they didn't offer it to you in the way you want it.
Yes
The amount of salt in these comments are fucking hilarious. No one but Microsoft ever promised you an easy desktop experience. If you want to play dumb, do it in your shitwear.
mce certified mouseclickexe
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
They're not a script kiddie for just wanting a binary. Wtf is this gatekeeping?
The accusations comes from them wanting to use a small tool for specific nefarious purpose (tracking people across social media). That's what "script kiddie" generally means: younger people lacking technical expertise seeking to use the "hacking" tools that others have made.
sudo pacman -R whingers
fr though if I have to build the software myself I'm probably looking for an alternative first
How is "lol if you're using a developer resource expect to need to follow basic technical instruction" boomer energy?
Ah understood
Dumb people trying other people look dumber.. it's a classic..
I think you a word somewhere.
I kind of agree with the Reddit post. Like how hard is it to just provide a simple download button? Obviously if it's an open source project and still in development there's not a lot of utility in doing that, but there are situations where there will be a plug-in for a program and it's been distributed via github.
And it's got a terrible UI, I can never remember where the download zip button is, because it's not obvious.
Because making proper executables working on all machines is just extra maintenance work. They probably just wanted to code something and share it to the world without that extra headache.
Unless you're running it very low level code no it's not.
If it's anything that is in c++ or java You're basically making me copy paste your code into a compiler and then pressing compile the end result will be identical to the one you would have given me.
It’s not if you want to compile for Windows, Linux and Mac at the same time, with x86, x64 and ARM support. Cross compiling can often be a big annoyance to set up.
And this is a Python project. Making stand alone executables for Python projects is rare.
GitHub public repositories get free build runners for all of those except ARM and aren't that hard to set up (for compiled languages of course).
Github is not a software distribution platform, it was never meant to be one. It's a developer platform for code distribution and collaboration. And UI is designed around that.
A lot of projects use it as a distribution platform, but they're wrong - it's always better to have a web page with simple download button for casual "ordinary" people.
But, this case is special: this mostly harmless tool is designed and almost exclusively used to stalk / doxx / hack people =|. So, it's not in developers interest to make it widely available and easy to install.
You're full of contradictions. "It's not a distribution platform it's another kind of distribution platform." Nevermind the fact that it has a "releases" feature designed to provide a somewhat easy way to distribute software however the dev wants to use it.
Then "it's a mostly harmless script designed to commit crimes." Do you know what harmless means?
Sorry, I meant to write that Github is not a software distribution, but a code distribution platform.
And 'mostly harmless' as in it's not inherently malicious - you can use it for harmless stuff. It's merely a tool.
Also I don't really follow how it makes sense that the UI should be bad if they only meant for it to be used with code. Developers are humans too, and the GitHub UI is not great. I use it all the time and still get confused by some of the dumb UI decisions they have made.
Well software is code.
And you did say 'designed' re: the Sherlock script
You are arguing with elitism, it will never go anywhere and they will never feel ashamed.
Honestly, 99% of the reason the world is still locked in closed source software ecosystems is that fucking elitist rectal-cranial inversionist devs that want to make it as hard as possible for a non-dev to use their tools.
'You aren't entitled to an easy install' is the mantra they whisper in their hearts as they push code.
What? It's python code, not in a binary, and you're complaining about things being closed source?
Also if you want it compiled and provided to you, feel free to pay someone to provide that service.
The only barrier here is not wanting to pay AND not wanting to learn or read instructions.
Life is going to be pretty tricky with that mentality.
^This attitude is exactly what crippled open source, good job playing into Apple and Microshit's hands.
The more effort a user has to put in to use a tool, especially when other, easier and functional tools exist, the less likely that user is going to adopt that tool as part of their daily use.
This is a false dichotomy, there are plenty of free and good open source tools that don't need 20 hours of manual plundering to install.
The Gimp is a great example of this, super easy to install right out the box for even non-technical people, is open source, doesn't cost a cent.
The simple truth is devs that share your attitude are too lazy to complete their projects so they get it to 80% and expect the end user to finish the rest.
Do you think that is winning you any adherents? But please, keep proving my claims of linux elitism so blatantly, it makes my job so much easier.
Listen son, I was coding and compiling C++ for MUDs back in the early 90s and some of my python code is still being used back at my university and I graduated before smartphones.
Your assumption of incompetence is just another symptom of the elitist rot that small minded devs constantly wear.
Oh I get it now, you're just an old fart with outdated knowledge who can't be bothered to keep up with "all this dag nabbit fancy tech, back in MY day" blah blah blah, go back to yelling at the cloud
That's not how getting older works. At all. Especially in tech.
You know one of the funniest things about people insulting me over my age? If everything goes well for you, you'll be here one day too. And it's going to be a lot sooner than you think.
And then you can have Gen Beta insult you for being an old fogie tied to the tablet ecosystem when brain interfaces are the norm.
I hope you remember this moment when it happens to you, but you likely won't.
The catch here is that oftentimes, for the use cases that people get elitist about, there are no other, easier, or functional tools, which is part of why it's so frustrating to encounter elitist mindsets around this stuff. I don't even really particularly care about not having .exes or what have you, or having to compile a python script, right, I mostly just kind of find it frustrating when documentation for these kinds of projects is extremely lacking and unclear as to what you're supposed to do. Shit takes 3 minutes on the dev's side, to curb like 20 or so more questions clogging up issue reporting and, realistically, what should be the avenues of contact you're gonna want to be using for bug reports. It's literally worse for the dev not to at the very least make the documentation a little better than it usually is. Sometimes that scales up to even be, it would be better for the dev to actually make an exe because that would be more idiot proof, and they would also get less shitty complaints.
Basically the argument I'm making is that many devs kind of encounter a deadlock where they get really frustrated at giving out something for free, then encountering complaints about inaccessibility, and then they start fighting ghosts when people ask them questions in lacking documentation. Most of these cases, if they'd put in slightly more effort from the start, they would've solved themselves a more massive headache in the long run. Lots of these, you don't even really have to put in a ton of extra effort, such is the upside of open source, you can just solve the documentation afterwards when someone comes in with a question the first time and then you take that feedback and actually append it to your documentation instead of just getting frustrated that everyone else is too stupid.
I'm glad to finally see someone in this thread talking rationally about this. Thank you.
I get that, the world is expensive, but being profit motivated does not align with the open source ethos. I have no problems with devs choosing to go closed source and charging for their products, but 90% of open source projects never get to the point of being solid enough to be a paid product regarding ease of install and use.
I think it's less that they want to be paid, and more that they just are doing something that they think is kind of like, an altruistic act (and it is, probably, as long as they're not maybe encouraging stagnation or inhabiting the space so that another dev won't take a crack at it). So it's frustrating to be doing this altruistic, somewhat thankless act, and then get bitched at for it, even if you're getting bitched at because of your own stupidity, or lack of forethought, or insular presumption that everyone else knows how to do what you do. I empathize with them, and I see their problem, but I also understand why people are bitching, instead of just being like "the people who are bitching suck and are wrong" how people tend to do, which just leads to a positive feedback loop where everyone is constantly pissed off.
Look I did helpdesk for a decade, I know for a fact what it feels like to be bitched at by people that you try to help. What I'm saying is that open source projects need big teams and people who know how to organize them, and there should be a foundation with the sole purpose of rounding up donations to fund those teams working on worthwhile projects.
And if some exist now point me in their direction and I will gladly donate.
If It takes me less than 10 mins to install their software.
This is not a standard tool. This is an offensive security (aka hacking tool).
The hacking community does not want people like the one in the post.
All of this still applies to any open source project
There is one core difference. In regular open source projects, lack of layman accessibility is considered a bug.
For offensive security tools such as in OP's post, it simply isn't a consideration because the audience for these tools are not laymen, therefore they aren't designed with laymen in mind.
In fact there's something of an incentive to keep laymen out because people just hitting random buttons without serious consideration of what they are doing can land people in jail.
They're designed with the offensive security community in mind, of which even the most rookie members think nothing of firing up terminal and entering some nifty commands.
I'm talking more open source in general and scraping tools aren't 'hacking'.
It’s not about elitism. It’s because most developers don’t want to spend that time on the extra maintenance and QA to ensure it’s working flawlessly for the end user.
Most FOSS are just things people initially wanted for themselves, so they developed it in their spare time. Then they thought it might be neat to share the code in case someone else might find use in it, so they uploaded their work to GitHub.
If you want an exe you can always contribute to the project, or at least make a fork.
No, it's not, GIMP has funding, resources and a fucking company behind it lmao and on top of that it's intended to be an end-user tool
Not all open source projects are the same, many are just things people work on in their free time and are kind enough to share, many aren't intended (like this one) for end users at all. They're meant for people who know what they're doing (which it's quite evident you don't)
If you want to know who is actually harming the open source community look in a mirror, it's people like you who whine and bitch about "Meah InstAllers MeH uSEr ExpErIenCe" that makes devs not want to contribute
That contradicts zero statements I have made, it is still super easy to install, doesn't cost the user a cent, and is open source.
Maybe the world would be a better place of more open source projects had funding.
If money is so important to them then maybe they should choose not to be open source devs?
If you cannot adhere to the philosophy then don't complain when people call you out on it.
It's people like me that have chosen not to go the open source route due to the difficulty, that is our choice and is the worldwide average choice as hardly anyone ever bothers to deal with all the byzantine bullshit that arrogant elitists like yourself are just giddy over expressing.
Open Source has failed its original goals due to elitist devs putting up artificial hurdles to general adoption, you don't get to complain about adoption if you actively narrow your market segment to people who have the time and experience to fix your broken shit before they use it.
Lmao, just because something is open source doesn't mean the devs are expecting a return. You talk about market segments, adoption rates and funding like that's the only goal someone has for sharing their project
You expect someone who put something on GitHub, for free, for everyone, worked on with their spare time because they had a passion for it to have it 100% ready to ship to production complete with an installer and a GUI? Nah, you're the elitist asshole, you should order more than one mirror.
Yes it does, they have the funding and resources to pay someone to handle the easy installer and user experience, they have teams of people to handle the issues.
LMFAO it's not about the money, it's time and effort, for one or 2 people maintaining a project they shared and work on in their free time that's in short supply.
If you have your panties in such a twist over "User Experience" it's open source, make your own damn contributions. Contribute an installer then, contribute some infrastructure for a website to have your fancy download button. You talk of open source philosophy, but then instead of contributing to making a project's user experience better, you just bitch about it instead.
Many open source devs don't care about the quantity of users as much as the quality. Good users, who can spot and report bugs, are worth their weight in gold. Users who can't do this may be great humans in their own fields, but aren't really that useful for the project.
Right, and they do it because they have more funding, time and/or manpower. Not all teams have these.
Then it isn't open source, available to all.
'I only want smart users who don't complain' is the most arrogant attitude a dev can have.
Ok then maybe more open source projects should get funding.
Open source means you are allowed to see the source code, and to modify and/or share it. No warranty or support is implied, and some software explicitly disclaim any such responsibility.
I don't think any dev wants users who don't complain. But when their time is limited, they want users who will submit useful complaints.
Also, maybe the situation will become clearer if you ask yourself why open source devs share their code for free. They aren't (usually) getting paid to do it. They are giving you code they probably wrote for their own personal use, in the hope that you might find and report issues with it, and thus help them make their own copy better. So if you aren't good enough to do that, well, they might help you out of the goodness of their heart, but you really aren't entitled to their help.
I mean, yes?
I hate when the installation takes like 20 steps. Never heard of an installation script and a interactive installation? I've installed far more complex software, that gets this but your shitty programm can't do it?
And they wonder why nearly nobody uses Linux. In Windows nearly all software comes as an executable. Imagine offering a software under windows, where you need to do the setup manually in a shell.
It's literally three steps, not 20 you overdramatic cringelord
It's just downloading the shit, navigate to the shit, run the shit
If you're too stupid to handle that then just suffer, for real
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? I'm not speaking of this project but in general. Other projects where they does this, not this one.
You forgot the /s
Making an installation script that will work for all, or even most, OSs and processor architectures can be a lot of work. Are you paying the devs to do it?
Because the more complex software is usually run by a bigger team, and has more funding.
And that's a problem, because the devs either have to make multiple versions - one for each OS version, processor architecture, dependency, feature set, etc. - or compromise and make a one size fits none solution. In contrast, if you provide the user the source code, they can ask their machine to compile it for their OS and architecture, including just the parts they want, without taking up unnecessary disk space or memory.
You mean, like the vast majority of scientific or technological software? A lot of it is written on python too, just like this package.
I do pay for my software, even when its free, when I like the software and the devs. But if the devs/community think they are something better, then no. I had some where they refused a install script and said something along the lines that if you can't get it running with the docs, you shouldn't host the software. Yeah I don't like such devs. Also when they have enough time to write a documentation, they have enough time to write a script. I even had one project, where the dev refused a correction in the docs, even though it was faulty.
Also you don't need to write a script for every system. You start with the most used ones. I mean just for testing I would get insane, when I have to repeat some steps over and over. At our company I do write scripts for some things that drive me insane. First I got told, it works this way, this costs too much time to do and it doesn't sell more software. I just did it and now they thank me for that. Even just an internal tool that I wrote for myself, after I drove insane doing stuff manually, now also customers get.
I don't speak about software where you pull via git, install some prerequisites and run a script. Not shipping prerequisites can have a legal reason and git pull is just a different way of downloading. It also works to download the tagged source code, instead of cloning but this requires more explanation to less skilled users.
Also with docker I came across some projects where they really butchered it. A docker compose file is my preferred way. I have my file + .env and it works for most containers I come across. It looks clean and feels clean. Running one command for creating a user is a understandable step, to avoid default users.
When you like to hammer in a lot of commands into a shell to install something, do it. I prefer my clean, simple and straight forward install scripts. I don't need a installation doc that goes over every customization that you can make. I want a setup that works for most users and after that, I can dig around every customization there is, to optimize a software how I want it. Not everything is needed right at start and a default value that most users will use, is enough for the start.
Good thing that there is a ton of software and I can pick the ones where I like their philosophy and support them. That is what I do.
To clarify, I'm not saying that devs shouldn't write scripts, just that they aren't obliged to. I too prefer having easy to install software. But the dev has given something they wrote for free, we aren't entitled to free support as well.
With the upmost respect, on most Linux systems, installing software is at least as simple as on windows.
Sidenote, Sherlock can be run on windows and it works the same way. So horrible starting point for your argument.