The specific repo in question had (and still has) a USAGE section.
And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it’s not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?
Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn’t want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them “SMELLY NERDS”.
I’m astounded that there’s still people defending this guy like that’s a totally normal thing to do.
If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.
But a lot of developers do do exactly that. They not only distribute binaries on their github, it is the only place where they distribute binaries. Github should probably recognize that it is a common use case and accommodate it better.
I’m also sure that a lot of people, like myself, took no notice of what specific package this user was complaining about, and are simply agreeing with the general sentiment that github could make things easier for non-technical users (which would, in turn, make it easier for developers since they would not need to field questions from users about how they download the software).
The specific repo in question had (and still has) a
USAGEsection.And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it’s not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?
Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn’t want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them “SMELLY NERDS”.
I’m astounded that there’s still people defending this guy like that’s a totally normal thing to do.
If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.
But a lot of developers do do exactly that. They not only distribute binaries on their github, it is the only place where they distribute binaries. Github should probably recognize that it is a common use case and accommodate it better.
I’m also sure that a lot of people, like myself, took no notice of what specific package this user was complaining about, and are simply agreeing with the general sentiment that github could make things easier for non-technical users (which would, in turn, make it easier for developers since they would not need to field questions from users about how they download the software).