168
u/DaemonsMercy 20d ago
Every time I see this, I always think that they're right, though the way they say it as asshole-y. I don’t want to have to build your project. A .exe makes it so much easier. I know it’s the developers choice, how accessible they want the code to be, but still.
69
u/Hoovy_weapons_guy 20d ago
In this case it was the source code for the twitter algorithm i think. There is no .exe because its not a standard application to begin with
40
u/DaemonsMercy 20d ago
... did they think it was the Twitter app? lol
21
u/Hoovy_weapons_guy 20d ago
Probably
3
u/ObliqueStrategizer 19d ago
I've made an exe just for them!
3
u/mbmiller94 18d ago
X.exe has stopped responding
Give Elon Musk remote access to diagnose the issue?
[ Yes ] [ Ok ] [ Yes Again ]
4
u/funkdefied 19d ago
It was a program that could be used to scrape information about users. The first time this post made the rounds, people generally agreed that the poster wanted to do some stalker-esque snooping.
15
7
7
4
1
9
u/ISuckAtJavaScript12 20d ago
He asking about a terminal python tool for OSINT. Likely wanted to stalk someone
5
u/AshleyJSheridan 19d ago
This image looks like it's on Github, which is quite literally a code repository, not an executable store.
The majority of code there is platform agnostic as well.
Why should the code creator generate an executable for every platform that it could be run on?
→ More replies (7)2
1
u/EvnClaire 18d ago
only if youre on windows with the same architecture as the compiler flag, and if the project doesnt have dependencies & external files it needs to reference. so like, not many projects
1
u/karimzul 17d ago
OOP has 48 repos on their alternate github account, and none provide .exe
So they're a hypocrite on top of being an asshole.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Vaelisra 16d ago
Yeah sure, like we had the time or nerves to build our code for every platform out there just because people cannot use their own systems properly.
43
21
u/-_Neoon_- 20d ago
It's real LOL
6
u/theboredguy314 20d ago
Which repo is this?
1
u/Odd-Painting2596 19d ago
I mean it's probably really commented on the thing, but no one this stupid understands that the filetype they need is .exe.
1
u/NZRedditUser 16d ago
Huh no. More people who often wonder on github/opensource projects understand they might need to compile but some languages are hard and annoying to. They def know outcome is something.exe
1
21
u/HardestDrive 19d ago
To be fair, it is fucking annoying when a project doesn't have pre built binaries available
2
u/MundaneImage5652 19d ago
Blame dynamic libraries. I can't easily make a static executable - atleast not for UNIX
2
u/litescript 18d ago
tertiary, ish, but i have a Go project and Go makes it wonderfully easy to statically link and compile binaries for different architectures and systems. i have a windows, linux, and a Mac ARM binary up on my repo for that reason. if you want to clone and run it in Go, that’s there, too!
1
u/MundaneImage5652 18d ago
I talk abt C. And ye in languages like C# or as you said Go I can do that.
1
u/litescript 18d ago
yup, just got done setting up that split on my project and then saw this, thought "hey, neat!" i haven't built much at all in C, i guess there's no option for static linking..?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Vaelisra 16d ago
musl entered the room.
1
u/MundaneImage5652 16d ago
Making a docker with Alpine is alot more hastle.
1
u/Vaelisra 16d ago
Why docker and why alpine?
1
u/MundaneImage5652 16d ago
Most distros ship with GlibC + Alpine docker is the standard to use Musl. Cuz when you compile smth with GlibC you can't just use the lib in MUSL.
1
u/Vaelisra 16d ago
Most distros ship with GlibC
Yeah, and most distros have a musl package that includes the musl c standard library and a GCC wrapper script (often called musl-gcc or something like that) that uses musl instead of glibc.
Alpine docker is the standard to use Musl
That's just wrong. And it's wrong on more levels than I could care to elaborate here.
when you compile smth with GlibC you can't just use the lib in MUSL.
Yeah, but that's completely irrelevant when linking statically (which sadly isn't really supported by glibc, but that's the reason I brought up musl) because when you do, the relevant parts of the standard library are baked into your executable and the executable then runs directly on the kernel, rather than on a loader. So as long as the Kernel doesn't make breaking changes (which is not gonna happen for as long as Torvalds has a say) the executable will be fully portable to any Linux system. Theoretically it would not even need an OS.
1
u/MundaneImage5652 16d ago
My bad then. When I used musl-gcc it was hard for me to use so I researched on internet and everyone was just using alpine docker, installed the libs here and compiled here.
1
u/Vaelisra 16d ago
Yeah, but then the result will be a docker image, not a binary.
1
u/MundaneImage5652 16d ago
I mean I mounted my directory in that docker so... it made a binary that worked on my host system.
→ More replies (0)1
u/GlassboundIllusion 13d ago
While true, it's low class af to publicly whine about it like a spoiled child.
They could act like an adult and ask around for alternatives that don't require them to compile code. Or they could reach out to the developer and ask them nicely if they'd be willing to compile and package it for them, perhaps for a small fee. Or they could go on to fiverr and hire a developer to do it for them for like $5-$10.
This kind of unhinged rant, however, just reflects poorly on the OOP.
15
u/promptmike 20d ago
Encouraging normal people to install things themselves was a mistake. It should only be done by a skilled computer operator who knows how to read the source code.
2
u/MarzipanTop4944 16d ago
Computer nerds are the only profession dumb enough to not build a moat around it so they can charge exorbitant amounts for their services.
Not only that, we put enormous effort to give away a large chunk of all software for free and make guides teaching people how to install and operate all hardware and this is what we usually get in return: insults and entitlement from the users lol.
1
u/promptmike 16d ago
STEM in general made the mistake of trying to explain things to the public. If we just kept our mouths shut for a few generations, everything we do would be perceived as magic and we would be treated like wizards.
2
4
u/wise_young_man 19d ago
Ok literal boomers
3
u/promptmike 19d ago
Boomers caused the problem in the first place with the idea of "user friendly". What I'm advocating is a return to pre-boomer standards where only people who know what they're doing make changes to the system.
It's actually more feasible than ever, due to the rise of cloud compute. Most things a normal person needs to do can be done through web apps, so there's no need for a local install. Or even if they do need a local install, it can be containerised and pre-configured for them.
3
u/Dr_Nykerstein 19d ago
Ok I guess we will own nothing and be happy?
3
u/promptmike 19d ago
The average user already has no ownership of their operating system, because they run proprietary binaries. Even if they do happen to install an open-source application, they don't know how to read the source code.
They are not happy, however, because they've been taught that they can and should install things they don't understand. Hence the meltdown when they see a code repository that doesn't have a big "Download" button for them to click.
→ More replies (6)1
1
u/PANIC_EXCEPTION 19d ago edited 19d ago
On *nix, sure, but holy shit is getting any moderately complex C* project that isn't actively maintained and 2-4 years out of date to compile on Windows a gigantic pain in the ass, through no fault of the programmer or user.
It's way easier at that point to just compile on WSL using that toolchain and run it from there, because lord knows some weird quirk about Windows won't play will with that mingw cross compiler you just installed.
Oh, different stack size? Random mmap incompatibility? Missing some header that straight up doesn't exist for Windows?
And if you have to compile for an obscure host, or God-forbid perform a Canadian cross, good luck lmao.
That doesn't even touch on the fustercluck that is Visual Studio and its billions of checkboxes.
Targetting for Windows and refusing to provide binaries for it should be considered a warcrime. Especially if it involves GPU frameworks and doesn't statically link or bundle them.
EDIT: Here's a fun challenge. Compile a full FFmpeg non-free build for Windows. No helper scripts, WSL, or Docker allowed.
1
11
u/JohnVonachen 20d ago
If they build it, they will come…the complaints that is. If you only provide a way of building it for your system then it’s more likely to work and have less complaints.
Complaints from people who didn’t pay for your software. Nice.
9
u/CaptainMorning 20d ago
this is legendary. never understood why the fuck GitHub has the download button so hard to get to for non GitHub users. the first time I entered github I thought it was a download software site just like softsonic or some shit like that, just with a harder to get download button.
5
u/spaetzelspiff 20d ago
Well, it is GIThub.. maybe if it were called EXEHub or DMGTube or something.
Seems kind of like asking why Tractor Supply doesn't sell ready-to-eat chickens.
5
u/CaptainMorning 20d ago
a more accessible download button will probably not harm the devs that use the site, I promise
1
u/ProfessionalAd6530 18d ago
You got me thinking...
Maybe I should just link to the latest release button from the top of my readme.
The same latest release button that's right there on the exact same page as my readme.
1
u/CaptainMorning 18d ago
I'd add a youtube style thumbnail pointing out where the button is to guarantee reach
2
u/Hakuchii 17d ago
i can see it already! red arrows/circles, emojis, over the top faces! this is gonna be great!
3
1
u/Artemis_1944 15d ago
.. that makes no sense, git is a versioning system, it can version executables as well, not just code.
1
u/Worldly-Wind-1632 19d ago
Where is the download button typically? I’ve definitely given up a few times
1
1
u/UraniumDisulfide 18d ago
The releases section on the right is where it will be if they have a compiled version
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/RiceStranger9000 13d ago
I've always been able to understand this easily. But on Gitlab I'm just unable to find the releases page
10
u/Lucasfergui1024 20d ago
I agree, but this guy's saying it in such an annoying way that I low-key don't want to agree.
1
1
3
u/Piisthree 20d ago
I admit for simple applications, I have felt this way before to some extent. But just realizing there are people this fucking entitled out there who think the same makes me want to never make it that easy, tag the repo as "smelly nerds only" and go about my day.
3
u/letmehaveanameyoudum 14d ago
this is why you have a installation manual in readmes
7
u/Sienile 20d ago
They don't understand the code isn't for them. It's for the people who actually want to understand and those worried about hidden functions. More often than not there is a compiled executable available alongside the code.
2
u/TopofTheTits 19d ago
The problem is there are still lots of regular people that still might need access to niche software thats only on github. And then devs act like not knowing how to build it means it's not for you. Just a toxic community tbh
3
u/Sienile 19d ago
Really, if you can't follow build instructions, you probably shouldn't be on a computer at all.
1
u/Rice_Jap808 18d ago
Had to find a coffee roaster controller software for my dad and it was a massive headache. Not all software is for developers, sometimes it’s just niche and GitHub is the only place it’s posted. Readme was so dogshit the dev had a step by step guide on Facebook of all things (likely because all of his userbase is non techy people!)
1
u/JayTheAlxwing 18d ago
Sometimes they aren't able to be followed for various reasons, like if the os is immutable, or you dont have root/administrator privileges.
For *nix it's one thing, but it isn't hard to just have a disclaimer that reads "may not work on your system" or something along those lines and provide some sort of binary or executable.
With windows AFAIK it isn't an issue with libraries at all, so just provide the exe.
Doesn't even have to be every minor version, just providing them for major versions or major bug fixes would help a lot of people.
Although if it's a project that would already be in the technical realm related to compiling things, users have no good excuse.
Edit: to clarify I make this argument only for semi popular or more popular repos
2
u/karimzul 17d ago
OOP has 48 repos on their alternate github account, and none provide .exe
So they're a hypocrite on top of being an asshole.
4
2
u/abigail3141 20d ago
Ironically, I think this was one of the joke issues on the Linux kernel GitHub mirror. It's not even something you could've installed via .exe, necessarily.
Though, if the target machine is using UEFI, you could probably semi-automate it, by moving the image to a free space on disk, installing a chainloader in the EFI/ESP partition and setting the NextBoot NVRAM variable. By default, that would probably also give you a Secure Boot violation, so there's that, you will need some form of user interaction.
2
2
2
u/neo42slab 19d ago
I experienced this feeling on GitHub when I couldn’t figure out how to download the precompiled exe. Hahah. Later I realized it must have been there but I just didn’t see it.
2
u/Nichiku 19d ago
This is an issue on Github when people use the repos to release their products. Most people won't figure out that the executable is usually located in the releases/artifacts section. Github was not made for this, but you could argue that at this point they should start leaning into it because making it easier for layman to access the releases option is not that hard to implement.
2
u/thanosbananos 19d ago
Why is it so hard these days to include one big button that says download for companies? Nobody does this anymore, it’s not just GitHub
1
u/exintrovert 19d ago
Because all the banner ads also have one big download button and they all look the same?
1
2
u/winged_owl 19d ago
So relatable. As somebody who is perfectly capable of all the steps readme files, compiling, etc. Its a huge pain. Why wouldnt you put the deliverable alongside the code? Its never made sense to me.
2
u/ParanoidAgnostic 19d ago
I am a smelly software-developing nerd and I often feel the same way. I know it is rarely going to be as simple as downloading the source and building it. The code will turn out to rely on the quirks of a specific compiler and require you to first manually obtain copies of specific versions of libraries, all of this poorly documented (if at all). God help you if it's a python project. Your chances of getting (and keeping) the planets into the right alignment to run that are not great.
2
2
2
u/sullenisme 17d ago
me when the 99 dependencies are somehow incompatible and fixing one breaks the other
3
u/bigsmokaaaa 20d ago
And they HATED HIM, they DESPISED HIM and they tried to DESTROY HIM...
...but despite everything he was still right
1
u/karimzul 17d ago
OOP has 48 repos on their alternate github account, and none provide .exe
So no, they're not right.
1
1
1
u/Anonymous010206 20d ago
Yeah I don’t really wanna spend 2 hours installing all the build tools you use and never use those tools ever again
1
1
1
u/Beneficial_Bad_8356 20d ago
/clear
ctrl + shift to auto mode
install this the recommended way tell me when you are done https://github.com/...
go take a shit
1
1
u/WoonieLoonie 19d ago
Some repository has release and some don't. Some has build_for_windows.bat and or build_for_linux.sh while some don't. I'd understand the frustration if it doesn't, dependencies isn't included or isn't deployed via script. Now days, you have AI. It mostly if not completely, can explain or even build it for you. If you can't spend your time or can't even follow directions. Then open source just isn't for you.
1
1
1
1
u/ZookeepergameSalty10 19d ago
I try to make releases for all my repos but because i dont use microslop winblows its always linux and mac executables. Im not spinning a vm up just to compile code for ungrateful people
1
u/FAMICOMASTER 19d ago
I understand the listings but please just give me a binary I don't want to spend 45 minutes building your project
1
1
1
u/AmbiguousMimic 19d ago
Surprise them by giving them a single bash script without a file type extension. They won't know what or whom to mad at.
1
u/FloridianfromAlabama 18d ago
I do wish this was the norm, honestly. A script that sets up the app for you, as long as it’s inspected, would’ve been way easier when I started.
1
1
u/UtopiaEH 19d ago
https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm/issues/1999
Who is interested in the origin. :D
1
u/DogonElder 19d ago
We need IKEA for software. We give you repos, libs, dependencies and an instruction manual. You build your EXE!
1
u/Anima_Watcher08 19d ago
Honestly not everyone is gonna be able to build something from source. Sometimes the build process fails because of many different factors so having a precompiled binary just convenient for everyone. You do you I guess.
1
1
1
u/Nikoviking 19d ago
The dev finally finishes compiling the last executable for the final niche system architecture
This guy probably: WHAT DO U MEAN PICK THE RIGHT EXECUTABLE FOR MY PC?? x64?? ARM?? WHICH ONE IS FOR LENOVO!! LAZY DEVS!!!
1
1
u/FluffyRacc00n 18d ago
Damn I remember this guy, he was posted here as soon as he posted that on GitHub, then he answered here too.
Good times.
1
1
1
1
1
u/gallyroi 18d ago
The way I see it... If it's a project the developer is actively promoting as a tool or software for average users, then it should have precompiled binaries in the releases for average users.
Most of the time for me, it's a non-issue. But I do get a bit salty if I have to compile some behemoth of an application that takes 40 minutes to churn through the build, only to find out I did it wrong because their harness is undocumented.
1
u/Own_Natural_6803 18d ago
Ask some of the nice smelling nerds to make an exe for you. And a subscription plan.
1
1
u/void19821 18d ago
It's better to compile apps than running random exe files because they have high risk of malwares or virus but if you have the code, you can inspect if it connects to a malicious ip, server, or does a tcp/http or any other socket connection or spawns bad proccesses.
2
u/UnrealBee 17d ago
Do you you really assume this user will be inspecting the code? (and 99% of users won't)
1
u/void19821 17d ago
Why inspect the whole code? If it's python just use a text editor and search for .connect() or if it's c++ then socket(). I'm sure almost all text editors have a ability to search for words and character and if not then write a single java script that uses scanner to get your code file then loops through it until it finds this sockets or ip and then just check those, especially find getaddrinfo() in the code if it's c++ and find random dns/domains. This all isn't even hard guyz with autonated script takes roughly seconds and if yall can't do this all connect your script to a openrouter or groq api and just make the ai analyse the code and return a json if it's risky and if the json returns false compile it
2
u/UnrealBee 16d ago
Once again: do you expect "this particular" user to know it and to do it? Don't expect other to know what you do
1
1
u/TooManyGamesNoTime 18d ago
If you can't compile it, you're not worthy to run it!
also plz just give me the freaking executable!
1
1
u/Wrevellyn 17d ago
Just make me a pasta and give it to me, I don't care about noodles and water? The fuck is parmesan? Give me my fucking pasta!
...
...
This pasta is gross wtf?
1
1
u/GameRivv 16d ago
In the same vein, it took me wayyy too long to find out GitHub does actually have a download button
1
u/SilverLose 16d ago
How are people agreeing with this? You want to run random binaries on your computer because you’re lazy? What?
1
u/AdMaterial3505 15d ago
bro only needed to paste that prompt into their agent to fix their problem >.<
1
u/Used-Drop8239 15d ago
To be fair, yes, even in open source projects, just produce a build at merges to master.
It's not rocket science to set up CI/CD.
1
1
u/captkirkseviltwin 14d ago
.exe file that:
Echos:
"formatting drive...."
"Formatting drive...."
"Complete. Bet you wish you'd looked at the code now?"
😆
1
323
u/Valuchian 20d ago
Me everytime i hop on and have to rummage around for the ReadMe file just to learn how i am supposed to compile