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

161–170 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#161

Post by foobarian »

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.

I only use it because IT forces Macs down our throats. It's understandable, the hardware is light years ahead of any other manufacturer, along with the OS support. But I just do the bare minimum of setup to get VNC and SSH working and GTFO to a proper remote dev box.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#162

Post by evgen »

remix2000 wrote: post #104
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

People are probably downvoting it because in a scant few lines you manage to pack in two lies and a half-truth. It is not packed with spyware, it has not fallen by the wayside, and the full clone is due to a request from github to reduce the load caused by homebrew users (as in it is so popular that it caused a noticeable impact on github servers.)

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#163

Post by stonesweep »

qntty wrote: post #130
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.

What do you mean by random unwanted updates? As far as I know, the only way to update is by running brew upgrade.

To codify both replies to yours as an outsider who watches macOS coworkers struggle: brew is akin to running Arch, where the concept is latest-tagged-release of any given software.

The newest version of X introduces a feature which has a need of Y library (dependency) >= n+1, where n is your already installed version. It just so happens that Y is shared between 3 applications; so if you upgrade Y to satisfy X, you now have to recompile/upgrade (depending on details) A, B and C as well to use the newly updated version of Y.

Arch (and other rolling releases) do/does this every day, it's just that the work is offloaded to upstream packagers. Brew is more "AUR-like" where it's all down downstream on your own system, so you get to deal with the work and churn through the recompiles yourself.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#164

Post by sirn »

flemhans wrote: post #129
yardie wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Macports? They’ve been around even longer than brew. But they were always a bit too Linuxy for most Mac users.

I always thought that brew was the "Linuxy" one and Macports was FreeBSD Ports for the Mac.

Jordan Hubbard was involved in the creation of both FreeBSD Ports and MacPorts (DarwinPort), so it makes sense that it shares the BSD ways of doing things. His decision to use Tcl for MacPorts also came from his experience dealing with Makefiles[1]

[1]: https://netbsd.org/gallery/10years.html#hubbard

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#165

Post by MarkyC4 »

biktor_gj wrote: post #144
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…

Not parent, and I'm not going to say it sucks, the project takes a lot of work from a lot of people and I ain't the one pissing on other people's work, it definitely could use some improvements syntax wise though, What was it, brew install? Brew cask? Oh , now is brew cask install... or was it brew install --cask? I get the analogy, but being a package manager, but was it really that bad to use 'brew install', 'brew…

Homebrew (and CocoaPods, perhaps famously) uses github as a CDN for their package listings, syncing the git repos likely takes the most time here

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#166

Post by quesera »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #134
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.

"Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better." MacPorts and fink existed before homebrew took over, and they weren't better. That's why homebrew took over.

But Homebrew wasn't (and isn't) better than MacPorts, either.

They both work well (we can and do quibble about the internal mechanics of each), and appeal to different groups of people.

My theory is that Homebrew was announced at exactly the right time in the MacOS adoption curve. A huge number of new users arrived with no existing knowledge of MacPorts or Fink. Most of them didn't know they needed a package manager at first, but when the momentum picked up, Homebrew was the new option with a better web page, a more collaborative working model, and hosted at GitHub (also ascendant).

I'd also argue that similar factors were involved in Linux's popularity over BSD in the 1990s.

Timing, environment, adequacy, and luck. All are required. Superiority is not.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#167

Post by jeffbee »

Hackbraten wrote: post #12
fnord123 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

PRs are welcome.

Well, that right there may be the reason you've had difficulty finding gainful employment.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#168

Post by dcchambers »

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.

I agree. Is Brew perfect? No, far from it. But I think that given the tools available at the time, Brew is the right balance between technically good and being really easy to use. The dependence on git means speed isn't great, especially if you don't use it often, but it keeps things simple and maintainable. I also think it's been fantastic to see the level of support from the community and the efforts of the maintainers. For example, merging Linuxbrew back into Homebrew itself.

Honestly I can't imagine using my mac without Brew.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#169

Post by volta83 »

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.

> There, I said it.

What a waste of bytes and bandwidth. "[homebrew] It’s the worst package manager I’ve used" is true for all users that have only used one package manager. The opposite claim ("it's the best I've used") would simultaneously be true.

You could at least have mentioned _why_ and that could have kickstarted a meaningful discussion, but instead your comment is the equivalent on a thumbs down in a youtube video.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#170

Post by volta83 »

quesera wrote: post #166
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Someone else would have filled the void if homebrew hadn’t shown up, and it would hopefully have been better." MacPorts and fink existed before homebrew took over, and they weren't better. That's why homebrew took over.

But Homebrew wasn't (and isn't) better than MacPorts, either. They both work well (we can and do quibble about the internal mechanics of each), and appeal to different groups of people. My theory is that Homebrew was announced at exactly the right time in the MacOS adoption curve. A huge number of new users arrived with no existing knowledge of MacPorts or Fink. Most of them didn't know they needed a package manager…

I used MacPorts before hombrew. Homebrew "just worked", MacPorts sucked.

Maybe I was too dumb to use MacPorts, but all other MacPort used I knew back then all moved to homebrew very quickly.

Post reply on HN