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

151–160 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#151

Post by bakedbeanz »

w0m wrote: post #138
martpie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual non-productive rant. What prevents you to do it better then? What prevent you from forking it? Sharing improvement ideas? Contributing to the project? "It sucks" doesn't help anyone understand your frustrations and does not serve the message you're trying to share (let this one be valid or not). Also, as everything that is open-source/free: if you hate it, don't use it, that's it. And let the people who app…

> What prevents you to do it better then? What prevent you from forking it? Sharing improvement ideas? Contributing to the project? I think ~everything he stated is generally assumed true. I use Brew installed software every single day, and appreciate it. That doesn't put it above criticism though.

"brew fucking sucks" is just whining, not reasonable criticism IMHO

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#152

Post by masklinn »

capableweb wrote: post #57
awakeasleep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope, completely different “package manager”. Homebrew and Mac ports are more similar to apt or yum or Pacman, and those often do not provide for running multiples of the same software except in specific edge cases where sauf software can be argued to be different from itself e.g. python2/3, they sort of things.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#153

Post by Enginerrrd »

game_the0ry wrote: post #141
peteretep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrarian view here: brew fucking sucks. It’s the worst package manager I’ve used for doing random unwanted updates at odd times. Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better. I hate that brew is good enough that it’s got some kind of local maximum such that there’s no replacement forthcoming. There, I said it.

I am cool with constructive criticism, but you do realize brew is free, right? If you are not happy with open source, you have a couple of options: - build your own brew - brew is open source, so you can make contributions to improve - pay for something like brew (though probably not an option for brew) Have you done any of the above before complaining? I am guessing - no. Otherwise, say "thank you" and move on, my f…

I get where you're coming from, but I think the open source community benefits from being, well, open. Walling yourself off from user frustrations and criticism with the attitude that they are ungrateful is not how projects evolve to better meet user needs.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#154

Post by mojuba »

shagie wrote: post #128
mojuba wrote: post #21

Been 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?

MacPorts and Homebrew have a different philosophy of software installation. MacPorts wants to have its own thing over in /opt where it has its own toolchain independent from the system tool chain. This means that all users on the system share the same MacPorts software. This has an additional impact that it means that it requires privilege to install software there. Homebrew, on the other hand, uses the system toolch…

Containers cover some use cases but not all. Experimentation for one, also if you need specific compiler toolchains that you occasionally use on your sources. You don't create a Docker image each time you need a specific toolchain. MacPorts definitely shines here but it's probably not a great option for non-technical users.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#155

Post by paultopia »

peteretep wrote: post #113
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.

Contrarian view here: brew fucking sucks. It’s the worst package manager I’ve used for doing random unwanted updates at odd times. Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better. I hate that brew is good enough that it’s got some kind of local maximum such that there’s no replacement forthcoming. There, I said it.

Yes. I'm really torn about brew. On the one hand, I hate to crap on the work that the maintainers have done, and it's clearly the best thing out there for macos. On the other hand, it's a terrible dictatorial piece of software that wants to command precisely how you use your computer; those same maintainers are actively hostile to users, as evidenced by the endless stream of nasty responses to issues, arbitrary changes to disable any functionality that they believe anyone has ever misused by their standards ever, etc. I pray daily that someone will fork it.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#156

Post by teilo »

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 is not a good steward of open source projects. We saw what happened with CUPS. Apple took it over and it basically died.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#157

Post by oreille »

game_the0ry wrote: post #141
peteretep wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrarian view here: brew fucking sucks. It’s the worst package manager I’ve used for doing random unwanted updates at odd times. Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better. I hate that brew is good enough that it’s got some kind of local maximum such that there’s no replacement forthcoming. There, I said it.

I am cool with constructive criticism, but you do realize brew is free, right? If you are not happy with open source, you have a couple of options: - build your own brew - brew is open source, so you can make contributions to improve - pay for something like brew (though probably not an option for brew) Have you done any of the above before complaining? I am guessing - no. Otherwise, say "thank you" and move on, my f…

You sure sound absolutely cool with criticism.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#158

Post by acdha »

WJW wrote: post #52
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 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.

Microsoft is investing a ton of money in developer productivity for non-traditional Windows developers. Apple has had a mindshare lead there but it’s not a permanent situation and a tiny fraction of their cash on hand is much cheaper than trying to win people back.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#159

Post by redwall_hp »

augustl wrote: post #126
acomjean wrote: post #26

Earlier 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 seems to me that if you compare Apple and Microsoft, it's only the latter that cares deeply about the developer experience on their platform. https://github.com/microsoft/winget-cli

It's really weird adjusting to a post-Ballmer Microsoft. I have plenty of existing loathing for that company from their behavior towards Netscape and Linux in the 90s and early 2000s (among other, smaller players). However, their developer-focused offerings are amazing, now that they made .NET Core open. C# is great to work with.

Meanwhile, Apple is now engaging in anticompetitive behavior that I find frustrating. (App Store stuff.) Things have turned on their head.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#160

Post by [deleted] »

peteretep wrote: post #113
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.

Contrarian view here: brew fucking sucks. It’s the worst package manager I’ve used for doing random unwanted updates at odd times. Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better. I hate that brew is good enough that it’s got some kind of local maximum such that there’s no replacement forthcoming. There, I said it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN