Throwback to that one time Google wouldn't hire @mxcl. ;) https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 Well done Mike and contributors! It's a great piece of work.
After using the terrible piece of software that Homebrew is I don't blame them.
Homebrew 1.0.0
161–170 of 255 posts
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#162Brew is awesome. Note though that it gathers anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics and reports to Google Analytics, see https://git.io/brew-analytics . You can opt out with brew analytics off
That's obviously fine for you to do but it's worth noting that we remove software that no-one uses where "no-one" is defined by "no-one using analytics". That's actually our main use-case for analytics.
> we remove software
Why? Personally, the only reason I would remove software from a repository is if it didn't work, impacted performance, or cost me an unreasonable amount of money/time. There's a really long tail for software packages.
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
The apt user experience is terrible compared with brew.
How so? The interface seems more or less identical to me. I'm not going to deny it's good and brings great stuff to the Mac, I'm just not seeing the advantages.
Other than "in every way possible"?
The only thing that is as easy in apt as brew is installing packages.
Searching, getting info about a package, updating the list of available packages, are all much easier with homebrew.
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#164Yesterday I was downloading a cask and homebrew told me to update because homebrew no longer needs to own /usr/local.
I think that was a perfect way to be introduced to this release :)
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#165Thank you guys for making my life as a software dev and end user infinitely easier. - brew install postgresql - brew install mpv The list goes on and on and on. You rock!
Postgres.app[1] would make your life even easier. :) [1]: http://postgresapp.com/
Postgres.app is "easier" to install but more trouble to develop with than properly installed Postgres. And "easier" means downloading an app, since it's quicker and fewer steps to install via Homebrew.
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#166If Mike is still here in the comments, can you talk a little bit about versioning support? Is this something that's on the roadmap at all, or something that Homebrew has a strong opinion about?
In general, it's a very useful (and pleasant to use!) tool - except for when trying to manage different versions of the same dependency on the same system. Since this is such a big deviation from most package managers, and feels intentional, I'd like to understand why, and whether there is a "homebrew way" of approaching multi-version management.
Thanks again for all of your hard work!
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#167Homebrew is quite an achievement, it grew in complexity over the years, yet remained reliable and kept a user-friendly interface. It's also very simple to create packages, it took me less 30 min to learn how to create a package and to deploy it. In comparison last time I checked, creating deb packages is absurdly complex, and I usually just give up and provide a Bash file instead.
I find your statement laughable. Brew and Debian's package manager aren't even comparable.
apt-get has a wider scope but, in some cases, what it is needed for is to deploy a simple application, and there's no simple way to do that with Debian packages.
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#168/usr/local was bad but /usr/local/Homebrew is worse.
The best would have been /opt/brew (short, no uppercase letter)
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find your statement laughable. Brew and Debian's package manager aren't even comparable.
apt-get has a wider scope but, in some cases, what it is needed for is to deploy a simple application, and there's no simple way to do that with Debian packages.
[deleted]
Re: Homebrew 1.0.0
#170Throwback to that one time Google wouldn't hire @mxcl. ;) https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 Well done Mike and contributors! It's a great piece of work.
It's hard for me to understand the issue with this. Google didn't hire the guy who wrote software that had a big impact on the community. Does it mean Google misses good engineers because of their less-than-ideal interview process, or simply Google hires only people who are a good fit for their organisation? Writing the overly bitter tweet surely won't help with improving hiring points. Seems highly unprofessional an…
I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of "unprofessional" just thrown around like this. The person is a god damned human being, not a robot. They had just gone through an extremely frustrating experience with an unsatisfying conclusion. And it's Twitter.
The only one who's being unprofessional is the one chiding others for being "unprofessional".