The problem with github isn’t really a problem. It’s just accessible enough to borderline tech people who want a one click solution to a problem. They can find it, but using it requires more skill than they have. It’s a code repository, not an app store. The most useful things I find on github aren’t from some massive app developer, they’re from some guy who happened to have the same problem as me. Rather than screaming at that guy for an executable, level up. Learn something.
Or head over to the releases page (just saying, it can be an app store too).
Basically, if there’s no exe ready and you don’t want to learn to make it, that means it doesn’t exist for you. The github page might as well just say “Coming eventually!”.
Tbf the released page can be hard to notice/find, a lot of projects who use it simply have links on the main page to it because a portion of users will fail to navigate there
I mean I code extensively and it still pisses me off they kind of don’t make the “download zip” more prominent or explain to noobs that this isn’t compiled/ plug n play…nor are most of the apps for Windows users, really.
This isn’t the job of a Git repository nor is it for GitHub, this is an issue for developers which shouldn’t use it as their main download way.
The download zip is not meant for the average person and frankly useless for most projects. I don’t know why you expect a Git repository to explain to you that bare code isn’t compiled or plug and play? How would GitHub know other than you informing them that the app isn’t for Windows?
I don’t think you understand the concept of what Git and GitHub even are and their intentions.
There’s no qualification to be a developer to access github though, I think is what the person you responded to is saying. It’s entirely possible for a user to end up at github without a true understanding of its purpose. Therefore, it would be helpful if it was more clear to the average non-developer user that what they’re looking at is a code repository and is not meant for general consumption.
And that’s the problem with modern internet and consumerism. I get your point, but the “I’m here, so I should be made comfortable and tended to” mentality really has no place in some situations. If you end up on a car parts website and have no idea what’s going on, you don’t just comment “Hey, this is really complicated, and no one warned me. Please consider making it more noob-friendly” because people usually know better, and understand that some things are outside their grasp, and that’s ok. This can be applied to academia sources as well. You would rarely see “What the hell is this all about?” below a rocket science article.
So, my point is, GitHub is for people who at least know how to open the command prompt on windows. Maybe they should use this as a warning next to any GitHub link, idk.
I agree with most of what you said but it wouldn’t hurt to create a watered down version of the site and put it on a subdomain like noobs.github.com … There can be separate UIs for different kinds of users.
They could ask when you register an account what you intend to use GitHub for and what your familiarity is.
I see you you’ve decided to take the road of not reading anything that has been said. There’s no bad usability OR lack of features for literally anyone relevant to these platforms.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding… but are you saying GitHub, the corporate entity acquired by Microsoft for 7.8 billion dollars 6 years ago, is a champion of the free and open software movement and that needs some rando on the Internet to stand up for it?
People have lived through many cycles of Microsoft doing this shit. They don’t deserve defending.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I’m talking from the layman’s perspective looking for a stable build of whatever the software is.
"
Anything outside of code repository stuff is outside their lane
"
sounds like you’re talking about non-technical users when that was the context of the original comment. I understand what you mean now though, and I somewhat agree.
The problem with github isn’t really a problem. It’s just accessible enough to borderline tech people who want a one click solution to a problem. They can find it, but using it requires more skill than they have. It’s a code repository, not an app store. The most useful things I find on github aren’t from some massive app developer, they’re from some guy who happened to have the same problem as me. Rather than screaming at that guy for an executable, level up. Learn something.
Or head over to the releases page (just saying, it can be an app store too).
Basically, if there’s no exe ready and you don’t want to learn to make it, that means it doesn’t exist for you. The github page might as well just say “Coming eventually!”.
Tbf the released page can be hard to notice/find, a lot of projects who use it simply have links on the main page to it because a portion of users will fail to navigate there
I mean I code extensively and it still pisses me off they kind of don’t make the “download zip” more prominent or explain to noobs that this isn’t compiled/ plug n play…nor are most of the apps for Windows users, really.
This isn’t the job of a Git repository nor is it for GitHub, this is an issue for developers which shouldn’t use it as their main download way.
The download zip is not meant for the average person and frankly useless for most projects. I don’t know why you expect a Git repository to explain to you that bare code isn’t compiled or plug and play? How would GitHub know other than you informing them that the app isn’t for Windows?
I don’t think you understand the concept of what Git and GitHub even are and their intentions.
There’s no qualification to be a developer to access github though, I think is what the person you responded to is saying. It’s entirely possible for a user to end up at github without a true understanding of its purpose. Therefore, it would be helpful if it was more clear to the average non-developer user that what they’re looking at is a code repository and is not meant for general consumption.
And that’s the problem with modern internet and consumerism. I get your point, but the “I’m here, so I should be made comfortable and tended to” mentality really has no place in some situations. If you end up on a car parts website and have no idea what’s going on, you don’t just comment “Hey, this is really complicated, and no one warned me. Please consider making it more noob-friendly” because people usually know better, and understand that some things are outside their grasp, and that’s ok. This can be applied to academia sources as well. You would rarely see “What the hell is this all about?” below a rocket science article. So, my point is, GitHub is for people who at least know how to open the command prompt on windows. Maybe they should use this as a warning next to any GitHub link, idk.
I agree with most of what you said but it wouldn’t hurt to create a watered down version of the site and put it on a subdomain like noobs.github.com … There can be separate UIs for different kinds of users.
They could ask when you register an account what you intend to use GitHub for and what your familiarity is.
Blaming bad usability/lack of features on the user is just what it: a bad excuse.
I see you you’ve decided to take the road of not reading anything that has been said. There’s no bad usability OR lack of features for literally anyone relevant to these platforms.
GitHub adding releases was the real UX mistake.
Anything outside of code repository stuff is outside their lane.
Start a new startup or something to solve that problem. Too late now that it’s under Microsoft.
Gatekeeping OSS is a thing now?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding… but are you saying GitHub, the corporate entity acquired by Microsoft for 7.8 billion dollars 6 years ago, is a champion of the free and open software movement and that needs some rando on the Internet to stand up for it?
People have lived through many cycles of Microsoft doing this shit. They don’t deserve defending.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I’m talking from the layman’s perspective looking for a stable build of whatever the software is.
"
" sounds like you’re talking about non-technical users when that was the context of the original comment. I understand what you mean now though, and I somewhat agree.