Live data from Hacker News

Homebrew 3.0

brew.sh

421–430 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#421

I will likely never move off 10.14 due to hardware and 32-bit software requirements. When will homebrew stop supporting this? I would have stayed on 10.12 but homebrew stopped working well on that after it became unsupported.

We typically support N-2, N-1 and N, which means you’ll be fine with Mojave until Big Sur’s successor comes out.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#422
Thank you, Homebrew maintainers, for all your hard work. One of the very first things I've done on new computers is install Homebrew, couldn't live without it :)

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#423
post #301

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…

> I hate to say it, but if this was a race (?), Homebrew won. Thankfully we all still have the choice to use MacPorts if we want, but there's no point in being mean about Homebrew at this point either. Definitely, plus there's also Nix and pkgsrc now, it's not like there's no alternative. And that's one race I lost trying to take the matter in my own hands with ArchMac[0] out of frustration with the limitations I fac…

I'd never heard of Arch Mac until I read this comment, but reading your post about pulling the plug gave me chills.

I could tell that you poured a lot into this project, and I feel a surprising degree of wistfulness over your decision to abandon it.

I hope whatever you're working on now is as fulfilling as you wanted Arch Mac to be.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#424
post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate that brew is good enough that it’s got some kind of local maximum such that there’s no replacement forthcoming. You may be interested in trying out nix for package management [1], or even for configurations and providing development environments (see my other comment [2]). [1]: https://builtwithnix.org/ [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26038614

When I tried nix on my mac a while back, it took forever to install basic things, had very verbose logs, was far more complicated and was missing packages. Is it still like that?

Nix on macos only got a pre-built binary cache a couple of years ago - before that, yes, almost everything had to be built from the ground up.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#425

I'm not familiar with Homebrew. Is it the kind of thing I could use to manage packages in my own directory as a non-root user (on Linux)? If so, will it be able to base itself on what my distribution offers, or will it build things up from scratch with its own toolchain packages?

> Is it the kind of thing I could use to manage packages in my own directory as a non-root user (on Linux)?

Yes, exactly.

Not sure what exactly you mean with your second question though.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#426

So glad I sponsor this project. The mac would be entirely harder to use as a development platform without these package managers (this praise includes all the efforts not just that of Homebrew). Donate here: https://github.com/homebrew/brew#donations Note: I am not affiliated with the project in anyway other than being a backer and a user.

Thank you so much for your generous support and for the shout-out. Much needed and appreciated. You rock!

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#427

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…

I find Nix to work better on macOS than Homebrew, and it doesn't embed spyware in the package manager like Homebrew does.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#429
post #34

Brew is great. I’ve switched to using Nix as much as I could but most “Apps” aren’t supported yet where `brew install —cask` has it right away. Always nice to know Brew will always have the latest version around. The only problem with that ends up being that if you use brew for development dependencies like Node or Python you can’t manage multiple versions. Nix being the most powerful in this area.

I've switched to Nix and never looked back, thanks to Homebrew embedding spyware into the package manager. I keep my non-system apps in ~/Applications and back them up with the rest of my files.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it unfortunate that those two occupy the 1-2 in Mac packaging options. It never really got much attention, but I've always liked Rudix [0] better. The package selection is much worse and not really kept as up-to-date, but the installation mechanism is far superior to Homebrew and MacPorts (and even Fink). It uses actual packages (the kind that Installer.app understands) so it integrates much more cleanly with…

Rudix seems interesting, so I just installed the nasm .pkg as an experiment. There are several things I don't understand yet. How is a package uninstalled? If there is an updated package, does the whole process of downloading and clicking through Installer.app have to be repeated? Also, is there an automated way to install a large selection of packages at once?

There is an actual rudix package that has install/uninstall, including for itself.

Otherwise you’re using the somewhat cumbersome process of backing out a package based on the receipt. It’s doable, but mostly requires some googling to find the correct incantation.

Post reply on HN