Live data from Hacker News

GitHub for Windows

github.com

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: GitHub for Windows

#211

Great news. I got flamed a month ago [1] for noting how difficult it is to get up and running on GitHub in the Windows world, where things like generating SSH keys aren't exactly part of the daily routine. Glad to hear that they were listening. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871699

I really don't want to get involved in this flamewar but I have one question: You can use github with https and you never have to setup ssh and manage keys. So what's the problem? SSH is not the only choice.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but to the people who may have trouble with the instructions (for whatever reason) or using the product beyond the instructions it is quite insulting. It is a direct insult to their intelligence and/or their ability for no good reason. That attitude does nothing to help our community, especially the people who are new to all this. Let's imagine a company creates some form of hardware widget that requires some for…

http://help.github.com/win-set-up-git/ Please, bring me someone who actually had trouble with those instructions, and not because they freaked out at the first sign of a command line. They must have actually read them, including the expandable bits, made a serious effort to follow them, and failed.

In most cases you are probably correct, I'm not really commenting on those particular instructions. I'm just making an observation about the responses based on comments people give about problems they are having.

I've read through the instructions and they do seem straight-forward enough. In fact, they are actually quite nice. But that still does not mean that some people will not have problems along the way. Not that I have any evidence to back this up but I can think of a few possibilities of why people may have problems:

1: The installer keeps failing for some unexplainable reason. Maybe they don't have the user rights, maybe the IT department is blocking it, whatever other possible install problems. You can't assume that everyone will understand why the installer is having issues on their particular computer as compared to another. We're already seeing reports like this for the new installer just released, I guess those people can't follow the simplest instructions of double-clicking an exe installer correctly. Right?

2: When they get to the line ending conversions part; what if they don't understand the options and abandon the process? Remember, some of these people are new to Git and without some hand-holding they may feel lost. In the screenshot I see there's no recommended option. So it's up to the user to pick the one they need without knowing what they need. Unless there's someone to point it out. And considering some people's attitudes about noobs doing the "wrong" thing then options like that are rather important to consider properly. Do you want to bet whether someone has complained about someone else picking the Windows-style checkout?

3: Even though the instructions are nicely laid out, not everyone is accustomed to the command line. I bet there's a huge number of Windows users who have never used the command line. Even with simple instructions there's the possibility for mistakes. There's even an extra section just for SSH that clearly shows that some people have issues with that part, even Github is trying to address it right there. But they can't possibly cover every conceivable issue.

Notice that most of my examples have nothing to do with the instructions themselves, but unforeseen problems that we have to deal with simply because so many people have different computers with different configurations with different networks with different IT departments with their different mandates. The attitude that it's simple for me therefore it must be simple for you is a bad one. The new installer worked for me on the first try, I don't dismiss the ones that did have a problem for some reason.

But to further prove my point about my two responses from before, Github decided to go with response A. How do we know? The release of the even simpler all-in-one application that started this whole conversation. Even with the "simple" instructions that have been pointed out, Github decided to listen about problems with the process and have responded with an even easier method to accomplish the same task. Even go above and beyond.

That is the mark of a good software developer/company/project. These are people trying to be inclusive, not exclusive.

Sadly, too many people in this thread decided to go with response B. Thankfully, Github disagrees with that attitude.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Scary crypto stuff"? So you don't understand how PKI works and you're trying to use distributed source control? (I say this not to be a jerk, but because there aren't exactly a wealth of good alternatives given it is a distributed source control mechanism. PKI comes with the territory and an SSH key generation is part of that) GitHub doesn't take any more setup than a standard Git setup takes (well, outside of signi…

I get really sick of this attitude. None of us want to understand every single domain of knowledge from set theory or quantum physics up to cosmology or social psychology. I personally have been forced to learn more low-level Unixy things than I ever wanted to. I want to write simple and elegant front and back end code quickly so I can spend my spare time honing UX and other human-facing aspects of my work. I resent…

"... whatever shiny toy ..."

You proved your point about people's attitude.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#214
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the fundamental problem. If you can't understand very basic security tools and concepts, you cannot securely operate a computer, much less hope to ever write secure code. He didn't say he was incapable of understanding it. > SSH is one of the easiest security tools to use safely that has ever existed. I would say it is second in usability only to HTTPS in browsers Perhaps that's true, but I suggest testing i…

There is no UX issue, it's entirely an irrational fear of having to read. Putting it in a GUI accomplishes nothing but clutter the screen with irrelevant crap. nknight@unassigned-hostname:~$ ssh-keygen -t rsa -C "foo@example.com" Generating public/private rsa key pair. Enter file in which to save the key (/home/nknight/.ssh/id_rsa): Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase): Enter same passphrase again: Your identif…

That is an excellent example of "scary crypto stuff".

Most people aren't going to change where the file is saved, or care. They don't know, or care what a fingerprint is. I still have no idea what the 'randomart' images are about.

I don't see any benefit to all of that over having a button marked "make keys" which just gets me set up so I can use github.

Of course, you could force people to care about what files are placed where, and their permissions. Then you should probably remove the default values of course.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#215
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's the fundamental problem. If you can't understand very basic security tools and concepts, you cannot securely operate a computer, much less hope to ever write secure code. He didn't say he was incapable of understanding it. > SSH is one of the easiest security tools to use safely that has ever existed. I would say it is second in usability only to HTTPS in browsers Perhaps that's true, but I suggest testing i…

There is no UX issue, it's entirely an irrational fear of having to read. Putting it in a GUI accomplishes nothing but clutter the screen with irrelevant crap. nknight@unassigned-hostname:~$ ssh-keygen -t rsa -C "foo@example.com" Generating public/private rsa key pair. Enter file in which to save the key (/home/nknight/.ssh/id_rsa): Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase): Enter same passphrase again: Your identif…

GitHub for Windows generates and associates the key automatically without any user intervention. This is arguably better UX, and indicates that how to use ssh-keygen isn't necessarily mandatory knowledge.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but to the people who may have trouble with the instructions (for whatever reason) or using the product beyond the instructions it is quite insulting. It is a direct insult to their intelligence and/or their ability for no good reason. That attitude does nothing to help our community, especially the people who are new to all this. Let's imagine a company creates some form of hardware widget that requires some for…

http://help.github.com/win-set-up-git/ Please, bring me someone who actually had trouble with those instructions, and not because they freaked out at the first sign of a command line. They must have actually read them, including the expandable bits, made a serious effort to follow them, and failed.

I had a couple of breakages, because step 2 tells you to remove SSH keys if they are already present (without saying "Wait! Why do you have SSH keys? Maybe you should ask why they are there"), which broke various tools that expected the old keys to be there.

So in all the rules, the one place that isn't just "press OK, press OK, press OK", tells you to do something probably dangerous, depending on your setup.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#217

Great news. I got flamed a month ago [1] for noting how difficult it is to get up and running on GitHub in the Windows world, where things like generating SSH keys aren't exactly part of the daily routine. Glad to hear that they were listening. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871699

Just ignore the internet warriors below. :). Smile, nod and continue being productive. The GUI saves you time and reduces the learning curve for new developers. If you feel like using the command prompt, you still can.

For my team, which consists of designers and developers, this will make the learning curve of my designers a lot easier.

Saying that because you don't know how to use SSH keys on a windows machine means you can't write secure code is just silly. It is a slippery slope to say that. If the majority of senior guys actually believed it then we wouldn't have a use for higher level languages (ruby, php, etc), frameworks like .net, etc.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#218
post #12

I'm interested to see how the community responds to their choice of ClickOnce as the deployment method. I use ClickOnce for several of my applications, and I'd say the users who dislike it the most have the highest technical aptitude (which, I'd guess, is a large part of GitHub's user base).

I like ClickOnce just because it has a built-in update method that doesn't necessarily require downloading the entire application installer all over again. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms404267.aspx Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to mass update ClickOnce applications apt-get style.

Of course, GH4W's first update _would_ downloaded the entire ~26mb package. I set myself up for that.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you'd love to still be programming in assembly, but some of us prefer to spend our time actually, you know, not mucking around with stuff that is an utter waste of our time.

It takes less than 4 minutes to do. And way to ignore every, other, thing I mention in there, like how something else is probably better suited for your needs if you think it is an "utter waste of time". The level of discourse and use the downvote just amazes me anymore. Seriously, how can you be that much of a douche after I made very basic, undisputed points?

What I don't get is why some people are so against making things simpler to get started with.

So what if it takes 4 minutes? Why not save all the people who might use your tool 4 minutes of clicking 'OK' through a half dozen boxes you assure them they should just ignore? Particularly if github (as seems clear) want to get more people to pay them money.

Re: GitHub for Windows

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no UX issue, it's entirely an irrational fear of having to read. Putting it in a GUI accomplishes nothing but clutter the screen with irrelevant crap. nknight@unassigned-hostname:~$ ssh-keygen -t rsa -C "foo@example.com" Generating public/private rsa key pair. Enter file in which to save the key (/home/nknight/.ssh/id_rsa): Enter passphrase (empty for no passphrase): Enter same passphrase again: Your identif…

GitHub for Windows generates and associates the key automatically without any user intervention. This is arguably better UX, and indicates that how to use ssh-keygen isn't necessarily mandatory knowledge.

All sorts of things can be done without any user intervention, but if the user doesn't understand how it works, they can't use it safely, and they are a danger to themselves and those around them.

One can perform the act of driving a car without any understanding of what the engine does, but if you lack any understanding of what it does, you're going to park it in a closed garage, leave it running, and kill yourself or someone else because you were too afraid of scary mechanical stuff to learn.

If you can't be bothered to learn about public key crypto, someone's going to social engineer your key out of you without you having any clue what happened.

Post reply on HN