3 ms·
Perhaps the distinction between "developers" and "users" is illusory. "Developers" are themselves "users" and they, too, must trust other "developers". I comp
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Perhaps the distinction between "developers" and "users" is illusory.
"Developers" are themselves "users" and they, too, must trust other "developers".
I compile kernel and userland myself, sort of like "Linux from Scratch" but more personalised. I am not a "developer". I read through source code, I make decisions based on personal tastes, e.g., size, speed, language, static compilation, etc. Regardless, I still have to "trust". To be truthful, I read, write, edit and compile software not for "trust" reasons but for control reasons, as well as for educational purposes. I am not a fan of "binary packages" except as a bootstrap.
It seems that most self-proclaimed "developers" prefer binary packages. In many cases it appears the only software they compile is software they write themselves. These "developers" often muse about "trust", as in this submission, but at the same time they use other peoples' software as pre-compiled binaries. They trust someone else to read source code and alert them of problems.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hulitu 2y ago> "Developers" are themselves "users" Hell no. I don't think that "Developers" who made the new Windows (10, 11) GUI use it in any way. If they do, they must be very masochistic.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoThey almost certainly use software written by someone else either at work or at home. For example, they likely use an IDE written by someone else. As such they are "users". It is quite common for self-proclaimed "developers" to write software for other "developers". In other words, developers who are "users". We see this on HN everyday.
- rkagerer 2y agoYeah, they know better than to eat their own dogsh*t.