Thanks for doing homebrew -- been using it for years!
No problem, man!
Homebrew 3.0
61–70 of 516 posts
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#62Been 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?
Homebrew is what a package manager would look like if Apple was doing it.
So quite limited in scope and not much configurable options and if you say that you need some features, they'll tell you you're doing it wrong.
It is quite easy to install though and has a lot of packages but if you have specific needs that are unmet, you are on your own.
It's more of a update manager than a true package manager.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#63If you wish to donate, then you can do the creator a favor:
https://mxcl.dev/#donate
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#64Does it work natively on M1 Macs yet ?
Your question is addressed in the second sentence of the linked post.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#65I don't understand if there are implications to upgrading to homebrew 3.0 for me a lowly user. Will things break? Will I lose access to formulae that haven't yet been upgraded to work with brew 3.0?
Should I upgrade right away or hold off for a while? Which is least likely to interupt my workflow in which I count on brew just working?
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#66/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.
I feel like it would be a /tremendous/ amount of work to install packages -- which often have dependencies -- asynchronously. When is this really a problem, anyway? You should probably not have something like 'brew update' scheduled to run periodically, as then a broken package could break something unexpectedly. It should really only be run when you're ready to check for broken things, which means you can also sched…
Homebrew now runs `brew update` before every `brew install`, no? That's how it gets in the way, you just wanted to install a thing, and now you are stuck waiting for `brew update` -- which I feel takes longer than it used to?
(You also may be confused between `brew update` and `brew upgrade`. I know I often am!)
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#67I 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.
But can he invert a binary tree?
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#68Been 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?
Have never used MacPorts, but based on your comment, and a few of the replies, I may give it a try. Homebrew is quite painful in many ways, particularly when managing multiple versions of a package (MySQL & PostgreSQL especially has had a lot of issues for me).
On the other hand, what I will say in favour of Homebrew is that its popularity does make life much easier as there's so much software available on it. Even very small / niche / new projects will often have a Homebrew package.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#69Earlier 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.
I mean, I don't run any billion dollar companies, so what do I know, but Apple donating a couple of million to ensure that Homebrew stays active seems like a no-brainer investment to me.
Yeah, Homebrew has been doing this work for free thus far, but open source projects die all the time. It's very much in Apple's interest to ensure this one doesn't.
Re: Homebrew 3.0
#70Earlier 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…
It also made sense that they'd make an absolute dogs dinner of golang package management after turning him down.
Some things are not in google's DNA.