A download button cannot establish trust by itself. People need to understand what they are running, who published it, and what was actually tested.
Automexia's website downloads have been withdrawn while the terminal is improved. The official source repository is now public, so people can inspect the code and follow the work. That is a review opportunity, not a claim of stability.
Make the development boundary clear#
A source revision identifies code at one point in time. It does not certify every desktop, shell, graphics driver, or workflow.
Anyone evaluating a development build should use the repository's instructions, record the revision, and start with non-sensitive work. Keeping another terminal available makes it easier to compare behavior and recover from a problem.
The development status guide explains this boundary. Installation links to the current development setup rather than presenting old package commands as supported downloads.
Publish evidence, not just files#
Before packages are promoted again, they need understandable requirements and limitations. Installation, update, and removal instructions must belong to the exact version being offered.
File integrity needs its own evidence. A checksum identifies exact bytes. A signature connects that record to a key. Neither proves that an application is free of bugs, and first-use trust still depends on knowing who controls the key.
These are requirements for a future release, not an announcement that new packages are available.
Keep corrections visible#
Replacing a published file under the same identity makes older checksums and reviews unreliable. A corrected artifact should have a new release identity and an explanation of what changed.
Withdrawal also needs to be real. Hiding a button while old links continue serving the same package is not enough. The website's former download routes are disabled, with non-redirecting responses.
Files already saved on someone's machine are not removed by a website change. Users still need to review their version and its limitations.
Keep source terms separate from readiness#
The public repository's MIT license describes the source terms. It does not certify compatibility, announce a release date, or promise future services.
The project trust guide identifies official information and the appropriate security-reporting path. Clear limits are as important as visible code: they let people decide what is suitable for their work.