The most fitting name for a software I've ever seen!
Homebrew 1.1.0
211–216 of 216 posts
Re: Homebrew 1.1.0
#212Re: Homebrew 1.1.0
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is one more reason I use MacPorts, because it never does crap like this: $ brew search x11 x11vnc Error: GitHub API Error: API rate limit exceeded for 0.0.0.0. (But here's the good n ews: Authenticated requests get a higher rate limit. Check out the documentation for more details.) Try again in 54 minutes 49 seconds, or create a personal access token: https://github.com/settings/tokens and then set it as HOMEBRE…
How often are you querying GitHub's API from your local machine?
I can answer that that precisely: 4. I was testing Homebrew in a virtual machine to see how it compared to MacPorts, Nix, and Pkgsrc at the time and can restore the virtual machine with Terminal still open and my complete session viewable.
Sure the "fix" is simple. But when I'm evaluating something I'm possibly going to make part of my life, I have to ask myself: how many more surprises await me?
Based on my evaluation of the available package managers, my ranking (for macOS) is:
1) MacPorts 2) Pkgsrc 3) Homebrew 4) Nix
Re: Homebrew 1.1.0
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't this be mostly solved by a paragraph in the Homebrew documentation that recommend creating a specific user which do installations? Edit: It seems to be fixed anyway? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12892929 (That aside, this praise was good to read. Homebrew didn't work well enough for me a few years back, so I got a Linux computer. I'll reconsider Macs next year when it is ~ time to get a new laptop.)…
No. Root is the specific user which should do installations . Thus, the "solution" is for Homebrew to stop pretending that password-less binary installs is a "feature" instead of a massive security hole. Honestly, Homebrew doesn't seem like a reason to either use or not use a Mac. For me personally, (as I mentioned elsewhere), the small amount of unix-y host (i.e. macOS) software I install is available in native Inst…
You seem to have strong views about the matter. Homebrew is open source after all; why not submit a pull request with the changes that you propose?
Re: Homebrew 1.1.0
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Root is the specific user which should do installations . Thus, the "solution" is for Homebrew to stop pretending that password-less binary installs is a "feature" instead of a massive security hole. Honestly, Homebrew doesn't seem like a reason to either use or not use a Mac. For me personally, (as I mentioned elsewhere), the small amount of unix-y host (i.e. macOS) software I install is available in native Inst…
You seem to have strong views about the matter. Homebrew is open source after all; why not submit a pull request with the changes that you propose?
> why not submit a pull request with the changes that you propose
I wasn't aware you could submit a pull-request to change the mentality of project leaders.
Re: Homebrew 1.1.0
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have strong views about the matter. Homebrew is open source after all; why not submit a pull request with the changes that you propose?
> why not submit a pull request with the changes that you propose I wasn't aware you could submit a pull-request to change the mentality of project leaders.
No better way to do it. Working code or stfu.