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

Homebrew 3.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#101

Post by simias »

pydry wrote: post #70
ksec wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think golang's handling of packages makes a lot of sense... if you're Google, and you have a huge monorepo anyway.

I think this reasoning explains a lot of my frustrations with Go: it's Google's language that they kindly let you use, it didn't grow organically within many communities and companies across a whole range of use cases and codebase sizes.

You have a similar thing with git, it was the kernel's VCS that you could also use if you wanted, but especially early on it was rather hostile if you didn't actually need to maintain a gigabyte-sized monorepo with hundreds of third-party contributors mailing patches to various subsystem maintainers that would then have their branches merged into the mainline. Fortunately git's usability has improved a lot since then.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#102

Post by sudhirj »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #65

I 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?

Homebrew generally doesn't do breaking changes. I haven't experienced any disruption... this version seems to be a headliner for full Apple Silicon support. Even if there are any changes, `brew doctor` usually handles things for you.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#103

Post by bluedino »

I wrote a post critical of Homebrew a few days ago, but it is a really great project.

I first used it 10 years ago when I was doing Rails development. It was kind of a pain to get everything setup on our development machines, installing new bits and making sure other bits were up to date.

After using brew it made our lives much easier. Combined with Rubygems it made every other platform and language look silly.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#104

Post by remix2000 »

cwxm wrote: 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.

Homebrew was nice up until they packed it with spyware and then subsequently forced full tree clones† down the users' throats. It still might be useful for some people, but it certainly fell by the wayside. What a shame…

†) As a result, Homebrew grew literally hundreds times larger and became unbearably sluggish.

.

PS: I'm wondering what drives some people to downvote this very comment… Stockholm syndrome maybe? ;P

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#105

Post by guytv »

Homebrew is great!

I love it.

My only complaint is that I never remember 'brew upgrade' from my 'brew update'. which is which.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#106

Post by shp0ngle »

acomjean wrote: post #26
cwxm wrote: 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.

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.

Apple did sort of half-officially supported MacPorts, precursor of Brew.

Nowadays they don’t want to touch anything GPL so that might be it

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#107

Post by jimbokun »

GlitchMr wrote: post #74
OskarS wrote: post #35

Earlier 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 did help with implementing support for ARM CPUs as mentioned in the changelog: "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." Making sure Homebrew works on ARM Mac devices made sense for Apple. Meanwhile providing money for no reason to Homebrew wouldn't make business s…

Might provide stability by making it less likely for key maintainers to walk away because they don't have time for both homebrew and their day job.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#108

Post by tinyhouse »

ksec wrote: post #42
toyg wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

I completely disagree with this comment. Not to mention the comments to his Quora answer, suggesting he should try a TPM position... people are so out of touch.

The main problem is that he went through the standard interview process. To prevent bias you need to maintain a consistent interview process and bar. All interviewers in big tech have annual trainings about this. If someone underperforms it's considered bad judgment to be inclined based on who the person is or their past experience. This is to prevent cases like "he didn't do well but we should hire him anyway because he graduated from Stanford".

When you have someone who is an exception you shouldn't hire them via the standard interview process. Maybe Google didn't think he's an exception. But the reality is, the vast majority of Google engineers wouldn't be able to build something as successful from scratch like he did. It requires more skills than just being a good engineer. They could've found him a role that fits his skills. When FB hired Yann Lecun I'm sure they didn't ask him how SVMs work. (not saying they are on the same level, clearly not, just an extreme example)

Another possible option is that he came across too arrogant in more than one interview and the hiring committee was worried he wouldn't be a good fit culturally.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#109

Post by Wowfunhappy »

lucideer wrote: post #99
newscracker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a blog post from April 2019 on package managers on macOS. [1] The author, saagarjha (who also comments here regularly), switched from homebrew to MacPorts. A more current update to this post would probably be more helpful. In my limited experience, I’ve tried homebrew a few times, but found it a bit cumbersome with the “no sudo” requirement. [1]: https://saagarjha.com/blog/2019/04/26/thoughts-on-macos-pack...

> found it a bit cumbersome with the “no sudo” requirement This is one of the few features I do love about Homebrew. Does MacPorts have a "no sudo" mode or does it just let all packages run rampant on your system?

The problem is that the way they do it breaks the UNIX model. /usr/local is common to all users, but Homebrew gives it the current user's permissions. This consequently creates weirdness if you actually use multiple user accounts.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#110

Post by Wowfunhappy »

my123 wrote: post #87
bacon_blood wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Apple would spend the time to make universal binaries work (unlike homebrew, who has stated they won't support them). Not installing universal binaries has some bad implications for Rosetta for developers. Having mixed single processor binaries in PATH can cause architectures to switch unexpectedly for subprocess chains (like when running a build tool), or even get "bad CPU type" errors in some contexts i…

And MacPorts is what had/has Apple involvement actually.

And, it does in fact support universal binaries.
Post reply on HN