Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.
El Capitan and Homebrew
61–70 of 298 posts
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#62Why does brew need to install everything owned by my user in /usr/local? I would honestly prefer if everything installed by brew was owned by root:wheel and brew would gracefully abort if I forgot to run it with sudo. Is all that current mess just so that I don't need sudo for brew?
What is /usr/local for, if its not for locally installed (by the user) sub-components? Just curious whats wrong with using /usr/local. This is what its for, after all ..
/usr/local makes sense to me if you've installed brew with sudo. But as other comment says, it's weird to me to have files owned by login user in system directory. It's such a rare scenario now I guess of multiple people on same machine, but isn't user home directory place for files owned by login user?
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The -R was a bit overkill - what's inside /usr/local should already have had the correct owner - the problem is the owner of /usr/local itself.
The upgrade changes the permissions of all files within /usr/local to root:wheel.
Didn't for me, only /usr/local itself.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#64osx just got selinux?
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#65My MacTex (Latex) installation broke for the same reason. Luckily, all I had to do was set put "/Library/TeX/Root/bin/universal-darwin/" in my $PATH and change the path of "pdtlatex" and "bibtex" to the GUI tools I use. But still, I lost about an hour or so trying to figure out what is happening.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#66Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.
Yeah, iPhone a very very unpopular for this reason, right?
You have the same amount of control, this is an option you can disable if you need to. I think the amount of people who need that is very small, even among technical crowd.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#67Homebrew troubles aside, does System Integrity Protection means the end of OpenVPN and FUSE on Mac OS? Those need to add kernel modules and such.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#68Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.
They do have full control - see the bit about being able to disable/enable via recovery mode. I for one am very happy to have moved on from an era where desktop security was abysmal and compromises lurked around every corner.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#69Users should have full control over their own machines. System Integrity Protection is obnoxious paternalism at best, and at worst, it's just another step toward iOS-ification. If Apple keeps this up, I expect a revival of Linux desktop distributions.
Isn't the goal to prevent malware from modifying core system files? How different is this than a simple mandatory access implementation? As long as it is possible to disable it, should I choose to, I am not outraged.
Re: El Capitan and Homebrew
#70Why does brew need to install everything owned by my user in /usr/local? I would honestly prefer if everything installed by brew was owned by root:wheel and brew would gracefully abort if I forgot to run it with sudo. Is all that current mess just so that I don't need sudo for brew?
So you'd want all those programs to run as root? Isn't that against any notion of security?