Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#121

Post by jrimbault »

burntsushi wrote: post #118
jrimbault wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often do you handle files large enough to observe a difference between grep, ack, ag and rg ? I'm willing to bet (and happy to lose) that most people, even in the subset who use grep "a lot" (defining "a lot"...), wouldn't see a significant improvement. They are people (I'm betting fewer) who need speed above all other concerns, and those people already make it to the top 1000.

The popularity of ripgrep, ag, ack, etc., is an object lesson in "defaults matter." I don't say this in the prescriptive sense, i.e., "hey, you, you should care about defaults!", but rather, in the descriptive sense, i.e., "there are a lot of people out there that care about the defaults." The second lesson to learn is that people care about the difference between "results are instant" and "there is a bit of noticeab…

First, thank you for your reply and your work.

Second, I include myself in the users of ripgrep (and the silver searcher before), I also dislike the slight waiting time when I have a better alternative.

Third, I'd like one those to be a default package in Debian.

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#122

Post by burntsushi »

jrimbault wrote: post #121
burntsushi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popularity of ripgrep, ag, ack, etc., is an object lesson in "defaults matter." I don't say this in the prescriptive sense, i.e., "hey, you, you should care about defaults!", but rather, in the descriptive sense, i.e., "there are a lot of people out there that care about the defaults." The second lesson to learn is that people care about the difference between "results are instant" and "there is a bit of noticeab…

First, thank you for your reply and your work. Second, I include myself in the users of ripgrep (and the silver searcher before), I also dislike the slight waiting time when I have a better alternative. Third, I'd like one those to be a default package in Debian.

:-)

> Third, I'd like one those to be a default package in Debian.

Yeah, I'd love that too! I know there have been people pushing on this, but AFAIK, it's stalled on "how do we package Rust applications in Debian."

(I don't use Debian and I'm not terribly familiar with their policies, so I'm not really familiar with the details.)

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#123

Post by djhworld »

apeace wrote: post #13

I'm surprised that ripgrep is so low, at #227. I've been using it instead of grep the last few months and I could never go back. Check it out if you haven't! Here is the repo and a technical breakdown by the author: https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep http://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/

Is it better than ack-grep?

I've been using ack-grep for years, seems fine.

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#124

Post by piquadrat »

snorrah wrote: post #112

Youtube-dl at #18 is hilariously telling, although to be fair it's great for archiving clips (from all sorts of sites, not just YouTube) that may get deleted due to all sorts of reasons.

It also is updated very often (I guess to keep step with all the non-public APIs it probably uses). Almost every time I run `brew update`, youtube-dl has an update ready. This might inflate its download stats a bit.

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#126

Post by fs111 »

falcolas wrote: post #6

Homebrew's use of analytics still bothers me; specifically, making data public like this. It was supposed to only be used for development efforts, not showing off top-1000 lists. Also, I guess this following statement is - taking the charitable option - out of date. > Homebrew's analytics are accessible to Homebrew's current maintainers. https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Analytics.... Yeah, I know, my…

There is always macports: https://www.macports.org/

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#127

Post by zeroxfe »

zakk wrote: post #106
mikemcquaid wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is telemetry collected through Google? No-one else provides anywhere near the same scale for free. We have over a million monthly active users and every other solution we tried (including FOSS ones) either fell over at that load or we couldn't find anyone willing to provide hosting for us. We don't send any personally identifiable information to Google. You are tracked by a randomly generated UUID (which you ca…

First of all, let me say I appreciate your response and your work on Homebrew, a great piece of software, and quite a blessing for Mac users. > No-one else provides anywhere near the same scale for free. That's a bit naive. Google is not a charity and provides that service by making a profit out of user data. > We don't send any personally identifiable information to Google. You are tracked by a randomly generated UU…

> That's a bit naive. Google is not a charity and provides that service by making a profit out of user data.

So what if they make profit -- they provide a fantastic service that actually works well, and it allows homebrew (and many other systems) to continue to provide it's services for free.

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#129

Post by onion2k »

peteretep wrote: post #78

Who the hell uses homebrew to install Perl? OS X ships with it, and perlbrew is a much more natural way to install it if you care about not using the system Perl. Maybe it's a dep for another package?

`brew install ` is a natural thing to try first. If it works well then why use something else?

Re: HomeBrew Analytics – top 1000 packages installed over last year

#130

Post by damnfine »

osteele wrote: post #113
pdkl95 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't send any personally identifiable information to Google. Yes, you do. While you use[1] the "Anonymize IP" option, a packet is still sent from the user's IP. Google's business model includes gathering as much data as possible so it's foolish to think that they are throwing data away in this situation. You may disagree and trust Google to honor the "Anonymize IP" option, but trust is not transitive so you sho…

>> We don't send any personally identifiable information to Google. > Yes, you do PII is a term of the art which the GP is using in its standard sense and you are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_inform... (This is independent of the deontolic status of your comment.)

Redefining a phrase to omit much of its common meaning is what got us here. I appreciate you helping to bridge the gap by translating, I am just bemoaning its nessessity.
Post reply on HN