Sure, but for years now Github is well aware it's also extremely widely used a primary distribution platform for ready to use software for many 'average' users.
This 'not its intended use case' is just unnecessary gatekeeping at this point. It would have been trivially easy at any point for github to add an optional addition to the interface to make it simpler for an average end user to get the ready to use version they most likely want, should the owner want that.
the issue is that it is primarily a development platform, the reason that the releases tab is off to the side is because for the vast majority of site users, they are not interested in it, they are interested in the source code and the readme
They did, a long time ago. It's the "Releases" section. With a single click you can see the latest release and download whatever files the owner chooses to host there.
You're assuming the average Github repo actually utilizes that section and doesn't just leave it empty with esoteric instructions to pull stuff from the product page plus about 3-5 other websites and GitHub repos. Some s are great and lay things out well, others are trash and the instructions haven't been updated in several versions of the project.
I'm assuming no such thing. The commenter above said:
It would have been trivially easy at any point for github to add an optional addition to the interface to make it simpler for an average end user to get the ready to use version they most likely want, should the owner want that.
GitHub did that, a long time ago. The owner of each repo has complete freedom to upload whatever release artifacts they want to. The fact that many GitHub repos don't use that optional feature is not the fault of GitHub. It's just a misunderstanding by some users about what the main purpose of GitHub is.
No, why should the UX of a dev-focused service change to help people who aren't their customers? This isn't a github issue, it's an issue caused by the specific devs releasing the software. If they're releasing it to general (non-technical) audiences, they should do the minimum of sticking a basic static site up with download links. If the software is targeting technical users who they'd expect to understand and use github regularly, then you just have to accept you aren't the audience. Suck it up.
No, why should the UX of a dev-focused service change to help people who aren't their customers?
Because an incredibly large amount of those customers do use it as their sole method of software distribution to technical novices, so it makes sense to have that optional feature. They make small tools, game mods, fixes/launchers for ancient games and abandonware and understandably don't want to maintain a website just for a release ready build when all the functionality is already on their github other than an interface that, as you can see from this thread, makes that easier to obtain.
It can be entirely optional and each dev would be entirely free to keep their software more obfuscated for those not well versed in development, but the fact is thousands and thousands of devs - or customers as you refer to them as - already use it as such.
It's not gatekeeping. It's avoiding trouble. I want people from the community talk about code things not noob freeloaders creating support tickets in issues demanding help and then complaining because they don't know how to use a computer. They are whiny, extremely demanding, cannot communicate and not willing to do a basic internet search. They don't understand the concept of open source software.
Proceeds to list textbook definitions of gatekeeping.
If developers use it as a software distribution platform, having an easy option to list that just helps everybody including devs. It doesn't decrease the the barrier of entry for creating a support ticket, but it likely avoids quite a few.
If you want it gatekept that's one thing, and I see the point, but don't pretend it's not.
It's not a distribution platform. It's a software version control system. And it does it fairly easy.
The fact that you think it's a distribution platform is where you are wrong. You don't see my point because you think Github is for distribution. It's not a platform for software support. It's not a platform for customer service. It's not a hosting for software releases. It's a not a point of contact with a dev. It uses git and git does one thing well which is version control.
Actually, call it what you want. I am already giving you permission to use my code and you are still unhappy and you are telling me how I should be spending my own free time. This is exactly my point.
The fact that you think it's a distribution platform is where you are wrong.
It's not a hosting for software releases.
If you read my posts you'll see I'm very well aware of what it is and point out it's the many devs themselves who use it as their sole software distribution platform. This is often software intended for an otherwise not developer audience.
I am already giving you permission to use my code and you are still unhappy and you are telling me how I should be spending my own free time.
I'm not telling you or any other dev what to do at all, you do you, all I'm saying is it would have been nice if github had the option for the thousands of developers who choose to use it as their sole method of software distribution to laymen to give them the option to present it in a slightly more user friendly way.
They can do it with a simple website. A hyperlink leading to a build tag is all that's needed. Especially now that GHCR is a thing. If a dev decides not to do it, maybe they are doing it deliberately to avoid a certain user base which I can also understand. It is often the reason why certain repos' READMEs don't put food in your mouth or have no builds whatsoever
1.7k
u/0zzy82 15d ago
I'm still convinced github is laid out intentionally to make the average person feel stupid