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

Homebrew 1.4.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 219 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#131

Post by 0x0 »

philwelch wrote: post #106
reaperducer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt anyone at Apple would be silly enough to allow software on an unannounced OS to freely send out analytic data ...and you'd be wrong. It is very common for Apple to test its new browser versions on the public internet and for those version numbers to show up in the logs of popular Apple web sites. It's one of the ways that Think Secret could confirm that a new version was on the way.

Besides, what does a version number reveal? “Oh, Apple is working on a new OS version!” You don’t say??

Certainly not much if anything at all, but it's mildly interesting to note that it identifies as 10.14 and not, say, 11.0.

Anyways there is surely something strange brewing for the next macOS, as Apple has repeatedly noted that "macOS High Sierra will be the last macOS release to support 32-bit apps without compromise", without specifying what kind of "compromise" might come up (see https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=06282017a )

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#132

Post by felixgallo »

eridius wrote: post #122

> Homebrew requires the CLT on all but the latest version of macOS (to avoid copious workarounds in formulae) Why? What are these workarounds? The linked PR didn't explain, and as someone who's still got one machine on 10.12 I'd really rather not have to keep CLT installed as well. Edit: Wow, the maintainer on that PR is a real jerk. He refused to answer a legitimate question (and locked the PR at the same time) beca…

Good luck writing your own version and supporting it. Be sure to post your progress.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#133

Post by DoubleCribble »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #110
drinchev wrote: post #4

The Patreon page says they receive $177 per month. That's too low for a project with such a high popularity and usage. I read somewhere ( and I bet ) it's used by Google / Facebook / Apple employees.

Also, interestingly, there are large companies that we know use our software heavily internally who flat out lie about using Homebrew in any form when we've asked for help with resources. It's a sad state of affairs that smaller companies and individuals are far more generous when it comes to supporting us.

If the Big Corps aren't going to play your game Please Donate!, you'll need to play theirs Invoice Required!. While there is a small amount of monthly overhead for generating invoices, landing just 1 paid subscription could make the effort worthwhile.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#134

Post by ManuelKiessling »

felixgallo wrote: post #132
eridius wrote: post #122

> Homebrew requires the CLT on all but the latest version of macOS (to avoid copious workarounds in formulae) Why? What are these workarounds? The linked PR didn't explain, and as someone who's still got one machine on 10.12 I'd really rather not have to keep CLT installed as well. Edit: Wow, the maintainer on that PR is a real jerk. He refused to answer a legitimate question (and locked the PR at the same time) beca…

Good luck writing your own version and supporting it. Be sure to post your progress.

I wish I could click this upvote triangle a million times.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#135

Post by kindfellow92 »

philip1209 wrote: post #19

The maintainer's tweet about interviewing at Google is one of my favorites: https://mobile.twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768?la...

Welcome to the free market, where private companies are free to hire or not hire at will based on criteria that works for them. Writing OSS doesn’t entitle you to any job.

Also “inverting” a binary tree is a trivial computation exercise. There’s a difference between engineering and scripting. Homebrew is very much a scripting problem.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#136

Post by reificator »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #110
drinchev wrote: post #4

The Patreon page says they receive $177 per month. That's too low for a project with such a high popularity and usage. I read somewhere ( and I bet ) it's used by Google / Facebook / Apple employees.

Also, interestingly, there are large companies that we know use our software heavily internally who flat out lie about using Homebrew in any form when we've asked for help with resources. It's a sad state of affairs that smaller companies and individuals are far more generous when it comes to supporting us.

Perhaps the people using it and the people responding to your requests are unaware of each other?

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#137

Post by [deleted] »

eridius wrote: post #122

> Homebrew requires the CLT on all but the latest version of macOS (to avoid copious workarounds in formulae) Why? What are these workarounds? The linked PR didn't explain, and as someone who's still got one machine on 10.12 I'd really rather not have to keep CLT installed as well. Edit: Wow, the maintainer on that PR is a real jerk. He refused to answer a legitimate question (and locked the PR at the same time) beca…

[deleted]

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#138

Post by mschuster91 »

reaperducer wrote: post #89
drinchev wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad. I always thought there are lots of companies, acting like WhatsApp ( $1,000,000 donation to FreeBSD [1] ) and return back value to open source, the same way they got value out of it. I'm really surprised that instead of "lots" I have to write "some". I also think that it's a much bigger win, financially and for P.R., to donate some of the profits, instead of paying the taxes in selected tax-paradise…

A lot of big companies, even in 2017, don't have a very good in-house process for buying software that isn't available on CDROM from a preferred distributor (CDW, etc...) One place I worked, it was easier to order a new work van for the department than a $30 program because the program could only be downloaded, and not bought in a box.

The reason is kickbacks. The CxO level gets either direct kickbacks (or, in holding company layouts, the mothership company) or by invitations to golf weekends.

So they try to keep people from buying from non-approved (i.e. no kickback agreement) vendors as much as possible, no matter if the company loses on the long term (worker happiness, productivity). Also, keeping records, both financial and stuff like license expiration is easier with one to a dozen suppliers than hundreds. The major enterprise vendors (eg MS, Adobe and Acronis) actually have dedicated enterprise license management solutions, which a tiny shop usually does not.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#139

Post by WillyOnWheels »

spiralganglion wrote: post #62
blackRust wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look into the OS version analytics, there are 397 events registered from "macOS (10.14)". That's the next version of macOS :) https://brew.sh/analytics/os-version/

My immediate thought is that this is spoofed. I doubt anyone at Apple would be silly enough to allow software on an unannounced OS to freely send out analytic data. I expect they'd have some sort of filtering applied either right on their dev/test machines (something like Little Snitch, though surely built in-house) or at the network level.

It's incredibly weird since Apple employees are heavily discouraged from running Homebrew.

Re: Homebrew 1.4.0

#140

Post by tzs »

Edit: Wow...within 20 seconds of me posting this, an update to "Command Line Tools" version 9.2 showed up in the App Store app. So, if you have this problem, check updates again.

Anyone else getting a warning about command line tools?

  $ brew doctor
tells me:

  Warning: A newer Command Line Tools release is available.
  Update them from Software Update in the App Store.
Looking around, I see that there are two sets of the command line tools installed. There is a set in

  /Library/Devloper/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
and a set in

  /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin
The latter is what /usr/bin/clang invokes. The /Library/Developer set is older. The file date on clang is 2017-10-20 on that one, and 2017-11-17 on the one under XCode.app.

Homebrew checks the command line tools version by running "clang --version". It uses this one:

  /Library/Devloper/CommandLineTools/usr/bin/clang
It has the /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools prefix hard coded.

The version I have there is 900.0.38. The version under Xcode.app is 900.0.39.2 (which is the version Homebrew wants).

Looking back at my Time Machine backups, I see that /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr did not even have a bin directory until 2017-11-23 (it just had usr/share/man). The bin directory there, and its contents, were apparently created when I installed "Command Line Tools (macOS High Sierra Version 10.13) for Xcode" version 9.1 from the App Store on 2017-11-22. That had clang version 900.0.38. That is also the version that was under Xcode.app at the time.

It looks like on 2017-12-06 there was an Xcode update (version 9.2) that updated the command line tools under Xcode.app bringing the clang version to 900.0.39.2 (which is the one Homebrew wants).

I haven't seen any updates for the "Command Line Tools" package, so what is the correct way to get the 900.0.39.2 tools into /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin, where Homebrew expect to find them? Is Apple just being slow to get the update out?

Post reply on HN