Open Source Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people organizing, marketing or licensing open source development projects. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Inspired by Source code or binaries? How important is this?
Many of the larger, more widely used, FLOSS projects provide both source distributions and ready-to-install binary images. This seems especially common when one of the target operating systems is Windows (presumably on the assumption most users don't have a compiler installed).
There are several reasons to provide binaries, some stronger than others:
First a passive reason - "Why not?" : if you have any users on a given target platform, the code will need to be tested on that platform, which requires creating binaries. So you will already have the binaries.
Now active reasons:
Convenience: if you make it easier for people to use your code, it will become more widely used, in turn making it more likely to have useful contributions. Note that even users with no software experience can spot bugs and request features.
Reputation: If you expect some of your users to be disinclined to use a compiler, then they can be expected to use precompiled binaries. If you don't provide these, they are likely to get them from somewhere else, which may be somewhere unscrupulous that provides them will malware or junkware. So providing binaries reduces the risk of ill-will being unfairly directed towards your project.
Trichoplax suggested a number of advantages to providing binaries, but no disadvantages.
Clearly, the largest advantage to providing binaries is the high probability that this will increase the size of the user-base. The type of person who visits this site is technically very savvy, most likely with programming experience, and likely to prefer to download source and compile it.
But we are actually a very small subset of the number of people who use computers and browse the Internet. Most users do little more than browse the web, chat on Facebook, send emails, etc.
Chrome and Firefox have displaced Internet Explorer as the leading browser, helped by having alternatives to Windows as a platform. But how successful would this have been if every potential user was required to download the source of Chrome (and webkit!!) and compile it from scratch.
But success comes at a price (one which can kill small FLOSS projects), literally a dollars and cents price.
Hosting sites like GitHub often have limitations on the size of individual files. And you really don't want to save large binaries in a Git repository. These sites also have limits on the amount of traffic that a given repository should generate.
This means you will need a host site which lets you publish potentially large binaries (multiple versions and multiple targets). It should also not be bandwidth limited. This costs money, which the project owners will need to raise from some source.
Having bitten the bullet, and set up a server, you need to decide which platforms you will support. And which versions of those platforms
Does the project have access to contributors that can support all the platforms you want to distribute for? Do you have people who can test the provided binaries to ensure they actually work?
Okay, it's all taken off .. you have a distribution mechanism, binaries, and lots of users.
As your project (assume it's a complete application) attracts more and more 'average people', you will be held to a higher standard for support.
-dev package.
I think that you should. It is very convenient for most, 99.99% of the users. Those who need to customize your soruces or run them at exotic platforms, will benefit also -- they will be able to try your SW in standard platform first before undertaking their endevour.
The only trouble I see is the trustfulness. You must understand that one of the greatest benefits of open software is not only that you can customize it but it is availability for the public review of privacy-sensitive code. The anonymizing services, like Dark Coin, are intended to perform your transactions privately. They ensure that they achieve declared goal by exposing the source code for everybody to review. However, how can you trust them if you download the "open source" in the precompiled, binary form? You review one thing but download and use some obscure another thing. There appears a gap. To match the installation simplicity with trustfulness, gitian is used in spyware-sensetive domain. So, instead of closing the binary download, you should simply encourage users to convince themselves with manual build.
