Hacker News Reader

The vast majority of Linux binaries out there were built by someone other than the original author of the product (usually the distro). I haven't seen much evidence that this causes a split in the community. Usually to have a split someone has to futz with the source.

I'm not sure it is really different on Windows or Mac either. I'm pretty sure most open source software binaries found in the wild were not built by the individual project's authors.

Limewire was this way to some degree. The source was free if you were willing to check it out from CVS, or you could download a binary from Limewire.com which strongly encouraged you to pay for "Pro".

This produced tons of scam sites that at best just compiled the binary themselves then took people's money, and at worst just bundled malware. It also produced Frostwire, which I think was a net positive, but was really just a re-branding. Limewire's open source community never materialized, and they got the worst of both worlds.

What if you combine this model with how Mozilla handles trademarks? Firefox is 100% open source, but if you distribute your own binaries, you can't use the name "Firefox" or the logo. That arrangement would seem to address your concerns.

That would help some of them, although it still cuts you out of potentially great feedback from your users (if you care about that.) Instead, users will file their bugs/raise their concerns/send their suggestions to Icestoat instead of your product.

You could, of course, watch that bugtracker (if they have one and if it is public), but it seems to me still to be counter to the ethos of releasing open-source software.

How hard is it to run ./configure && make && sudo make install (at least on a *nix-compatible OS)? Most of the time the defaults work fine.

I have no idea how this would translate into the world of Windows though.

For 98% of the world's population? Very hard, approaching impossibly hard.

In that case I like this model, not because I want to feel like a special snowflake, but because it encourages and rewards leaning.

Wonderful! Remember those words when you encounter a program that "encourages" you to master quantum physics, tort law for interstate commerce, and accounting for mergers and acquisitions before you're allowed to use it.

Getting some piece of FOSS to work on a VPS many years ago was how I got started learning GNU/Linux. I couldn't be more grateful for the pitfalls and minor struggle I had before I could get whatever it was working.

The two also don't compare. Quantum physics is different and more complex than ./configure && make && sudo make install. Also, the user doesn't have to learn any of this and can just make a "donation" if they prefer.

It's easy to Google "how do I compile this?" or "how do I install X program?" and get results. It is not, however, easy to Google "How do I use the Hartree-Fock approximation on toluene?"

Remember: the internet was built by computer users. We have some of the most detailed documentation and most accessible learning materials of any discipline. The same cannot be said of computational chemistry, quantum physics, systems metabolomics, ...

The top Google result for "How do I use the Hartree-Fock approximation on toluene" is this comment thread. Smashing!

Ironically, the top result for "How do I use the Hartree-Fock approximation on toluene" is now your comment saying this thread is now the top result! [1]

[1] http://i.imgur.com/8EiBm.png

Even more ironically, now the top result for "How do I use the Hartree-Fock approximation on toluene" is your comment!

Point made. ;p

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcc.540070209/abs...

your google-fu is weak my son.

No. Learning about configure, make and make install is more like learning basic arithmetic than quantum mechanics. And I certainly wouldn't begrudge a program having basic arithmetic as a prerequisite!

Of course I don't begrudge a program having basic category theory as a prerequisite either (turns out the very basics are actually very simple!) so maybe I'm not truly representative.

The last time I used make was when I was in school, about 10 years ago. I don't think I've ever used configure. The last time I used arithmetic was... every day. To me, make is closer to quantum mechanics than arithmetic.

I also dabbled in Haskell. Honestly, I struggled. There's a distinct possibility that I'm not that smart, but if I'm not, then there are a lot of people that aren't.

Okay, maybe arithmetic is too basic. But it certainly isn't beyond basic trig! I bet you don't use trig daily, but it's hardly unreasonable for you to need to know what sin and cos do.

The first time I ran into the whole configure and make system, I just looked at the INSTALL file and followed the instructions. It was actually easier than some GUI stuff I had to do because I could basically copy the commands verbatim instead of having to look through a bunch of complicated screenshots.

It also took me a little bit of effort to get used to Haskell. But once I did, it was great. It really is a magical language; it combines all the benefits you normally hear about with a unique sort of expressiveness I haven't found in any other languages (even close ones, like OCaml, don't quite cut it, although they are awesome in their own ways).

The real breakthrough for me was implementing a simple Scheme interpreter in Haskell. There is a tutorial [1] that explains exactly how to do this; I found it very helpful. However, I am a little leery of suggesting it now because the code there doesn't always follow best practices. It's great for getting the right mindset, but you should probably not carry all the exact techniques over to your real code.

[1]: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Write_Yourself_a_Scheme_in_48_H...

if this metaphor is still in terms of the general populace, then expecting people to understand how sin and cos work to use something is definitely too high of a bar. if you're lucky they might remember sin and cos as a magic button that changes whatever number they put in on their ti83.

In which case this model allows them to substitute money for an understanding of sin and cos.

If there is anything I have learned in life, I am pants on head retarded, but so is pretty much everyone else, except for like 1 in 10 million people who must cry at night knowing everyone else is a dumb monkey, who got the combined benefits of born into upper middle class living for security + untroubled childhood + high iq + passion for learning taught early on + ambition + connections.

How to type ./configure, make, etc, sure

But it never works the first time, and then you have to figure out how to install this libsdl that's missing

And no, packaging name is a crapfest, between Debian based and RPM based, they all bring me to tears

Go on, try to install libsdl in Fedora. Oh, you see, there it is called SDL. And then you install it and it doesn't work, because you need the dev version. Or devel. Or maybe it's consolidated in a package with a different name. Or maybe it's split in 2 packages and that thing you need is in some god-forsaken package like libfoo-extras-nooneneedsthis-promise

Agreed. Even with a comprehensive Read Me there will be issues that people wont be able to overcome due to lack of experience...mismatched library versions, compiler versions, OS, etc.

Why is it good to shelter people from learning experiences? Forums, documentation, Q&A sites, IRC, Google, etc are all excellent resources for n00bs.

When I was a complete and utter beginner I relied on all the above methods for support when I encountered seemingly insurmountable problems, and as a consequence I learned a lot and quickly. This was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

Because of train wrecks like this (there are plenty of other examples around, let us no pretend there aren't):

/home/rob/projects/gnu/gcc/configure -target=arm-linux-androideabi --host=i386-linux-gnu --build=i386-linux-gnu --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld --enable-languages=c,c++ --without-ppl --without-cloog --disable-libssp --enable-threads --disable-nls --disable-libmudflap --disable-libgomp --disable-shared --disable-tls --disable-libitm --with-float=soft --with-fpu=vfp --enable-target-optspace --enable-initfini-array --disable-nls --prefix=/usr/local/android-toolchain --with-sysroot=/usr/local/android-toolchain/sysroot --enable-gold --with-pkgversion=Rob Savoye --disable-libquadmath --disable-plugin --enable-gold=default target_configargs=lt_cv_shlibpath_overrides_runpath=yes --enable-cxx-flags='-fexceptions -frtt

You say shelter, someone else says complete waste of time. I am actually for people building their own but if you don't recognize that some problems at some instances of dev are simply over complicated winding hacks that will not ever be used again... well. That just turns to the 'Holier than Thou' moments that look over pedantic to people that, while not lacking coding skills, will just be put off when contacting with this reality. And the n00bs, l33t talk, not so much.

In addition to the other response, most of these are terrible resources for people trying to learn.

Forums: "omfg search u fucken noob!!"

Documentation: Haha, what documentation?

Q&A sites: Find 1000 threads with no replies all asking your same question. Find 1 thread with your question, and then a reply - which says "Never mind, I figured it out."

IRC: "omfg rtfm!" - as a best case scenario. More likely, -- leeter sets mode +b noob@noobisp.net / -- noob has been kicked by leeter (learn to rtfm)

Google: See Q&A site

Mailing lists might work as a resource. Reading the code might work. And sure, you might have some success with these methods, but pretending like you can just send someone trying to learn a piece of software into any of those places and expect them to get answers easily is laughably naive.

Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've never had any of the experiences you've described. The worst that's happened to me is having a question closed on one of the Stack Exchange sites.

I also did forget to mention mailing lists; I knew I was missing something.

I have occasionally had them. If you're doing something relatively common, like trying to compile a popular project on a popular platform, you can get answers pretty reliably.

However, if you're doing something really uncommon, or your problem is unusual in some way, there may be no remedy beyond building the required technical knowledge to solve it yourself. Sometimes that's years beyond you.

Compilations with lots of flags are a great example of that. If your particular system needs a flag that isn't there, Google isn't much help. And if you don't know what those flags do, you may not be able to learn enough to solve your problem in a reasonable amount of time.

We have top-notch programmers which have never heard of configure, and to them anything opensource that does not compile straight in Visual Studio is not worth it.

You can't even get them to learn a little bit about make, but then again some of them glamorize XML as the best thing ever.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." —Inigo Montoya

I'm genuinely curious and I'm not being antagonistic, but why do you call them top-notch if they refuse to learn and shy away from a problem that should be (to them) relatively easy?

Maybe he's talking about notches on the pay scale ;)

Because they are the best at what they do?

Someone are just the best programmer in Windows/Visual Studio environment. And being "top-notch" should not be reserved to only those who use command line.

I have an immensely hard time believing someone is the "best programmer in VS" without knowing how to use more advanced tools.

I think he was referring to the "top notch" developers being unwilling to learn, which to me would disqualify them from the category of "top notch", no matter what how good they are at using their preferred toolset. I'm curious, if they are so resistant to learning new things, how well do they deal with changes in MSVS? Like for instance going from 2008 to 2010, the solution file format changed (and the importer is far from perfect), and things were moved around in the GUI.

Because you can't learn everything under the sky. Most of them are strictly Windows programmers, with lots of console (video game) experience. They are just not interrested in Linux, OSX, etc the way other people are (me for example).

What's the point for them to learn something like this, if they don't see how this is going to help them in what they do?

Slightly off topic: May I ask you what's wrong with XML (as long as it is used for what it's meant?).

The syntax. I can't stand the fact that I have to close a tag with the same name. S-expr (lisp), Lua, Json are much visually better (IMHO) way to express that. And readable (again IMHO).

> I have no idea how this would translate into the world of Windows though.

Spend an hour downloading Visual C++ Express (assuming it works in express, otherwise buy the professional version). Try to fix any build errors (not an easy task if you're not a programmer). Install NSIS and any installer dependencies. Make sure the binary is in the right place. etc.

Don't forget to install any dependencies before you configure, otherwise you might have a shiny new ImageMagick that doesn't support PNGs!

I think it could serve as a reminder to people who aren't really sysadmins that, hey, I don't know enough to fix this if it breaks so maybe I should pay for support for this product that I rely on.

To run those, if everything works, simple.

If you are even slightly embedded in dependency hell, then nearly impossible, spending a reasonable amount of time.

Not everything is that easy. An example would be NeoOffice for Mac. You have to "donate" to get the binaries or compile it yourself, except it requires 10.4 and XCode 2.5 [1].

[1] http://neowiki.neooffice.org/index.php/NeoOffice_Build_Instr...

Or worse, they bundle it with malware/adware.

  I also take umbrage to calling this a 'donation'.

I take it you don't have a medical card?

Well, I mean, it's great to feel passionate about your users and all of that. But surely, there some of us that want to actually male money (and not modest kind that allows one to live a very simple life Costa Rica).