Does it work natively on M1 Macs yet ?
Homebrew 3.0
51–60 of 516 posts
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. And it’s important for devs to have up to date tooling. This intrepid band of volunteers are adding huge value to one of the largest corporations on earth. I appreciate the DIY effort of anyone who volunteers, though I see the donate tab on their website and sigh a little.
> It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. I can understand them not wanting to do it themselves. I don't think they want to take on the responsibility for maintaining all those packages (for legal reasons or otherwise). Because it's a "not officially Apple" thing, Homebrew can probably get away with a "no warranty" sticker that an official Apple project couldn't. What A…
> Apple would be fools to not support it financially.
Since people are already doing an excellent job for free, why would they start paying them? Clearly the lack of Apple funding has not hurt the project thus far.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it him who was turned down by Apple and Google, after he built homebrew...?
>turned down by Apple and Google It was Google. Because he didn't know what a binary tree was or something similar during the infamous Whiteboard test. But I mean it make perfect sense. Google is all about building AI, ML, Algorithm, K8S etc. Complexity is their KPI, usefulness is not. So may be it isn't so much a bad thing after all. He wouldn't have fit in. Edit: I guess the tone didn't shine through. The "all abou…
> Google is all about building AI, ML, Algorithm, K8S
No, no big companies are "all about" anything, there is so many different areas of work, that rejecting a person because the company is "all about" X, doesn't really apply. If they wanted to work with him, they would have made it work. But they didn't, so they didn't.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#54Been a MacPorts user for years and I know nothing about Homebrew. To those who tried both: should a software engineer switch to Homebrew? MacPorts has its own way of dealing with dev tools and framework versioning. E.g. you can have multiple versions of complex products like PHP or MySQL at once. You can even have a GCC package for a specific target arch as a separate ports package. Does Homebrew allow these things?
I find that MacPorts is a better citizen of my laptop, but the mindshare of homebrew means that brew will have both more packages and more up to date packages.
And getting the tools team at work to vend both brew and macports seems malicious so I just suck it up there.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#55I 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.
It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. And it’s important for devs to have up to date tooling. This intrepid band of volunteers are adding huge value to one of the largest corporations on earth. I appreciate the DIY effort of anyone who volunteers, though I see the donate tab on their website and sigh a little.
> It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. And it’s important for devs to have up to date tooling.
There is no money to get from it. And developers are not the "end user" for Apple anymore. I don't see why Apple should even care about Homebrew.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#56Been a MacPorts user for years and I know nothing about Homebrew. To those who tried both: should a software engineer switch to Homebrew? MacPorts has its own way of dealing with dev tools and framework versioning. E.g. you can have multiple versions of complex products like PHP or MySQL at once. You can even have a GCC package for a specific target arch as a separate ports package. Does Homebrew allow these things?
No. MacPorts is so much better nowadays.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience with homebrew is that it doesn't deal well with multiple version of packages at the same time. For example, it doesn't like to keep outdated openssl in parallel, which is good from a security standpoint but can make it difficult if your job involves a lot of looking at antique codebases and help with updating them... It's why I switched back to macports after briefly testing it
Can you explain exactly what you are describing: “it doesnt deal well with multiple versions at the same time” Also what system/os are you comparing to?
Don't have a ton of experience with either macports or homebrew but pretty much any package manager deals with running multiple different versions at the same time, or projects using different versions of the same dependency, without getting in your way. Biggest/most famous example I guess would be javascript/npm/npm inc registry.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#58/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.
It’s possible to set `HOMEBREW_NO_AUTO_UPDATE` and `HOMEBREW_AUTO_UPDATE_SECS` to somewhat alleviate this.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. And it’s important for devs to have up to date tooling. This intrepid band of volunteers are adding huge value to one of the largest corporations on earth. I appreciate the DIY effort of anyone who volunteers, though I see the donate tab on their website and sigh a little.
> It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. I can understand them not wanting to do it themselves. I don't think they want to take on the responsibility for maintaining all those packages (for legal reasons or otherwise). Because it's a "not officially Apple" thing, Homebrew can probably get away with a "no warranty" sticker that an official Apple project couldn't. What A…
Yeah, the app store has become a source of a lot of controversy around policies, so signing up for more public criticism of how they handle a package manager is probably a headache they don't need.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. I can understand them not wanting to do it themselves. I don't think they want to take on the responsibility for maintaining all those packages (for legal reasons or otherwise). Because it's a "not officially Apple" thing, Homebrew can probably get away with a "no warranty" sticker that an official Apple project couldn't. What A…
> Apple would be fools to not support it financially. Since people are already doing an excellent job for free, why would they start paying them? Clearly the lack of Apple funding has not hurt the project thus far.
One could say Homebrew is successful despite Apple not trying to even mention their name, even less help them be successful. Many groups also look at successful groups and think "How can we make them more successful?" but don't think that's in Apples DNA.