Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonbonheur | Hacker News Reader

Dude, if you saw the source, you'd faint.

About it being unknown, may I remind you that much of Apple OS X or Microsoft Office are just as "unknown"? Have you read the source of LibreOffice recently?

EDIT: I've included the source in the .zip now. Maybe i should have put an EULA like the "trusted" companies but anyway, you wanted it, you got it. In BASIC.

View on HN

> About it being unknown, may I remind you that much of Apple OS X or Microsoft Office are just as "unknown"? Have you read the source of LibreOffice recently?

To the sentiment of the parent; Apple, Microsoft and the Document Foundation are all large entities with years of good faith trust building relationships, where you are "just some guy" on the internet asking people to execute arbitrary code.

I understand you not wanting to release source, but I also understand the parent's hesitation to run your binary.

I see where you are coming from on this. The difference is that people know and roughly trust MS and Apple. And hundreds of devs have worked on LibreOffice.

Apple and Microsoft have much to lose if they are found distributing malware. You on the other hand have just written your first GA program and have admitted that the source is ugly. What is the last time you were OK about running an executable from a shady site?

Let's not beat up on the OP too much for not releasing source. It's a very complex program and in an initial state is surely messy code (we've all been there).

Good work OP.

Just in case it came out the wrong way, kudos to the OP for getting the job done. I just found his argument that the source-code isn't needed because Microsoft doesn't release its sources way off mark.

We need to see the source so we know your code isn't malicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com