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

271–280 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#271

Post by the_other »

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 tried MacPorts. Then I tried brew and stopped using MacPorts. Maybe I just don't use my computer the way you do?

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#272

Post by jacurtis »

volta83 wrote: post #170
quesera wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, I have to agree. I started using a mac about 11-12 years ago. Homebrew was new. At the time MacPorts was the "defacto" package manager and Homebrew was the "new kid on the block" or "experimental" one.

I started with Macports and it never did what I wanted it to. Packages were broken and it required me to do a lot of stuff that I didn't understand. A friend told me that he had recently done all the same installs on Homebrew and it was easy. So I gave Homebrew a try and the exact same packages installed easily and quickly. Homebrew has only gotten easier to use since then.

Maybe I am just not doing anything complicated enough with Homebrew to run into the issues other people have had, but my experience with Homebrew has been a breeze. I really don't have any complaints. I'd maybe prefer if packages were Python instead of Ruby, but at the end of the day that really doesn't matter.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#273

Post by busterarm »

paultopia wrote: post #155
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.

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 chang…

You left out the entire generation of developers who are totally disconnected from how systems work and think that "it runs on my machine" should be good enough.

Brew has lowered the bar enough that lots of folks simply don't have a clue how to deploy anything and worse, don't have a clue how to troubleshoot when something goes wrong in production.

Obviously it's a double-edged sword. It's good to not waste time configuring your workstation, but ultimately I'd argue in brew's case too good to be true.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#274

Post by plorkyeran »

CydeWeys wrote: post #236
Jestar342 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he posted more information in an answer on Quora[1] to clarify why he felt he was turned down. [1]: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin...

> But ultimately, should Google have hired me? Yes, absolutely yes. I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them. Surely, surely Google could have used that. Actually, no. There's no level of rockstarness that excuses being a dick and difficult to work with. That kind of attitude can turn a who…

Yeah, my takeaway from his telling of the story was that he is someone I would give a Strong No to, and not because of anything related to his CS ability. The fact that he wrote that after an unsuccessful short tenure at Apple where he ran into the exact same problems as he would have at Google yet still thinks Google should have hired him just reinforces that.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#275

Post by zests »

404mm wrote: post #250
talentedcoin wrote: post #201

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that Homebrew forced people use Ruby to write formulas (ie packages), whereas MacPorts forced people to use Tcl. This one decision, plus hosting formulas on Github, was a major contributor to their present success. As much as I sympathize (deeply) with all the criticism of Homebrew here on this thread -- I used to use MacPorts religiously and love it -- I don't think Homebre…

MacPorts seem to be very “user” friendly for people with Unix and/or Gentoo (maybe a bit Arch too) background. I have experience with all three and when I needed to decide in between HomeBrew and MacPorts, it was very simple choice. I tried both to get the actual experience and stuck with MacPorts. All the naming in HomeBrew was just too confusing too me.

I've never used MacPorts. Go figure, I just realized that "MacPorts" means "bsd ports for mac". I'll have to try it sometime and see if I prefer the look and feel of MacPorts.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#276

Post by busterarm »

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.

Too much of the tooling that people want to use is GPL.

Apple is more allergic to the GPL than any other company on Earth. They would never do something official that would even put GPL software in their orbit.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#277

Post by pwinnski »

Gelob wrote: post #133
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.

+1. i like it but yes if i dont use it everyday and 2 weeks later go to brew install something, omg it has some gigantic update to do before i can brew install anything.

That is frustrating, but fortunately `HOMEBREW_NO_AUTO_UPDATE=1` will take care of it. Then you have to remember to update every now and then yourself, though.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#278

Post by optimuspaul »

mikepurvis wrote: post #112
lucideer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

My understanding is that the whole reason for running the outer commands as sudo is so that the inner build/install commands can be run in a far more restricted environment. Because brew runs as your own user, every build has access to your entire home directory, the whole homebrew folder, etc. It's nice in principle to not have to "trust" any of homebrew with sudo, but in reality, the trust surface area is far large…

I am confused by this. sudo seems like a far larger surface area than running as me. If it's just me then it's just me, but if it's sudo, then it's the entire box.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#279

Post by 458aperta »

> brew bottle and bottle do blocks use a new syntax format (one :cellar per platform).

ahh finally. been looking for this nifty feature for a while.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#280

Post by lloeki »

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.

You would have been happy with ArchMac[0] then.

Unfortunately after a dozen or so years as sole maintainer and user I dropped it a month ago[1].

If anyone wants to take over just reach out.

(not in the post but I had to pull the DO storage because I was severely out of cash, I still have the packages locally)

[0]: https://www.archmac.org/

[1]: https://lna7n.org/2020/01/06/pulling-the-plug-on-archmac.htm...

Post reply on HN