Live data from Hacker News

Homebrew 3.0

brew.sh

11–20 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#11

What will we do if apple restricts the installation to only signed apps and brew no longer works?

> Particular thanks on Homebrew 3.0.0 go to MacStadium and Apple for providing us with a lot of Apple Silicon hardware and Cassidy from Apple for helping us in many ways with this migration.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#12
post #4

/me searches changelog for "`brew update` now runs asynchronously and doesn't block the process to install a 3 year-old package." Dismayed, I do not find it. Asynchronous formula updates would IMO save the most Mac man-years of almost any macOS tool.

Optimizations to brew would save many many watthours. If I were to guess, it would be over a MWh per year.

PRs are welcome.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#14
post #6
post #3

I can’t even begin to imagine how much value Max Howell (creator of Homebrew) has added to the world. It’s the recommended package manager at every place I’ve worked at and saves so much headache. I use Linux at home and package managers like AUR are great, but macOS is where the users are.

I don't think homebrew has more user than say apt or pacman. Maybe there are a bit more people running osx than linux, but much of them are not devs or "power users" and never run homebrew.

Apt I can agree, it's still the gold standard of package manager and powers the most popular distributions out there in bajillion cloud instances.

Pacman, erm what? Arc is a niche of a niche. I'd bet Alpine's package manager sees more action than that - let alone yum/rpm.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#15
post #5

Thanks for doing homebrew -- been using it for years!

Seconded — it brought a huge improvement to the quality of life on a Mac. Thank you!

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#16
post #8
post #3

I can’t even begin to imagine how much value Max Howell (creator of Homebrew) has added to the world. It’s the recommended package manager at every place I’ve worked at and saves so much headache. I use Linux at home and package managers like AUR are great, but macOS is where the users are.

Was it him who was turned down by Apple and Google, after he built homebrew...?

Yep. And I don't know the story and certainly wasn't there - but technical prowess alone doesn't get you the job. And honestly he may not be a good fit. Is he going to want to fix bugs or work on Google's schedule and have a boss? Some people aren't cut out for the work lifestyle.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#17
post #6
post #3

I can’t even begin to imagine how much value Max Howell (creator of Homebrew) has added to the world. It’s the recommended package manager at every place I’ve worked at and saves so much headache. I use Linux at home and package managers like AUR are great, but macOS is where the users are.

I don't think homebrew has more user than say apt or pacman. Maybe there are a bit more people running osx than linux, but much of them are not devs or "power users" and never run homebrew.

Does it make homebrew less valuable if there are other package managers for other OS’s that have more users?

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#19
post #3

I can’t even begin to imagine how much value Max Howell (creator of Homebrew) has added to the world. It’s the recommended package manager at every place I’ve worked at and saves so much headache. I use Linux at home and package managers like AUR are great, but macOS is where the users are.

The fact that AAPL doesn't support brew's maintenance and development is a great reason to not buy more macs.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#20
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think homebrew has more user than say apt or pacman. Maybe there are a bit more people running osx than linux, but much of them are not devs or "power users" and never run homebrew.

Does it make homebrew less valuable if there are other package managers for other OS’s that have more users?

The very premise of this (sub)thread is one of "more users == providing more value" so .. yes, for this conversation, it matters.
Post reply on HN