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

Homebrew 7.0.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#241

Post by vor_ »

richwater wrote: post #170
ryandrake wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 years is really not a long time at all. You can probably find heaps of open source software out there that compiles and runs perfectly on 20 year old PCs. It's not like the maintainer has to do much to retain support--they just have to not make the software dependent on new operating systems. Bits don't rot.

How many of those 20 year old projects had to go through an architecture change that the manufacturer no longs supports? Come on man be reasonable.

Ask MacPorts, which goes all the way back to Leopard-era PowerPC!

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#242

Post by vor_ »

sethops1 wrote: post #125
mikae1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Homebrew 7 is supported on your Mac, you just have to install Linux to use it. :) If you want to continue using the same MacBook that will be only path forward when Apple decides to EOL it (if it hasn't already happened). I'm a long time Homebrew on Linux user, it works really well. I always prefer it over the distro supplied package manager for user facing CLI apps.

Apple was selling Intel Mac Pros in 2023, it's absurd these things are coming up on EOL already.

Check out MacPorts. It was the original package manager, still going strong, and it supports Macs going all the way back to the Leopard era. It also always used /opt instead of taking over /usr/bin like Homebrew.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#243

Post by c0_0p_ »

mikae1 wrote: post #21
mikemcquaid wrote: post #2

Today, I’m proud to announce Homebrew 7.0.0. The most significant changes since 6.0.0 are faster installations and upgrades, stronger sandboxing, a native macOS app, built-in vulnerability checks and an advisory database, the end of macOS 10.15 support and Intel Macs moving to Tier 3 (announced last year).

Thank you for Linux Homebrew! It works so damn well. For me the distro package manager is for system packages, Homebrew and Flatpak for the user facing apps.

Same, for me it made it possible for me to work on Linux with teammates on Mac with very little messing around of the setup scripts.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#244

Post by threecheese »

impulser_ wrote: post #188
hk1337 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I split my usage. Homebrew for OS things mise for the various tooling. The only problem some things still have a dependency on requiring python and others on the system. The problem being that they’re there, mise works just fine.

You can use mise for install homebrew items btw so if you get a new computer you just drop the config.toml inside the mise and install. This is all you have to add to the config file: [bootstrap.packages] "brew:git" = "latest" "brew-cask:ghostty" = "latest"

Homebrew does this as well, I keep my packages synced with a Brewfile in chezmoi. Obv this only works for brewed packages though.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#245

Post by threecheese »

conorcleary wrote: post #114
mikemcquaid wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t build it. The emoji were my idea. I (and Homebrew) have used them heavily before LLMs did. Maybe LLMs loving them is my fault. Sorry if so.

Have we pinned down the emdashes source yet? ;-P

Apple devices produce a ton of emdashes; "Smart Punctuation" is enabled by default on iOS and iPadOS, maybe Mac as well - and it's at least a decade old.

I've had to disable it on all my iDevices bc it breaks some Markdown parsers. How big a % of training data was produced on an Apple device? Ehhhhh probably small.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#246

Post by threecheese »

vor_ wrote: post #240
yladiz wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software maintenance is not free, especially for a project the size of Homebrew, and it's perfectly reasonable for software to not be supported on older computers due to maintenance burden, with a good example being 32 bit processors. If you had a 32 bit processor would you expect all of your software that was supported now to be supported forever, just because it supports it now?

How does MacPorts manage to do it?

Why don't you ask them?

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#247

Post by lrvick »

woodruffw wrote: post #225
lrvick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to have to be this harsh as it is clear you did a lot of work, but I have warned members of the brew team about serious gaps here multiple times over the years and seemingly nothing has been done. Brew is not anywhere close to a level of supply chain security to be allowed anywhere near production access or production code review. Language package managers are a joke and not worth comparing to but at least we…

I’m one of Homebrew’s security maintainers, and I don’t recall any contact with you. Who did you reach out to? If you have concrete concerns, please bring them to us. Vague concerns and hand-waving about “people getting hurt” isn’t appropriate or productive.

I had jumped into chats and a github issue as I recall, probably 7-8 years ago based on the employer I was researching it for, but would be hard to track that down now.

Anyway, my tone may not be entirely constructive, but it is one of frustration as seemingly no one is taking supply chain attacks seriously anywhere I look. I am quite sure if homebrew was backdoored, it would give an attacker control of production systems of countless financial companies, defense contractors, healthcare providers, AI labs. I think it is insane they trust rando homebrew maintainers with that much power, but they do and they are probably not going to stop because they do not even understand these risks, and there are not practical alternatives to brew on MacOS.

So that puts some major responsibility on the Homebrew team to either warn people to stop using it in high risk environments, or manage homebrew in a way appropriate for those environments.

Stagex actually does every single thing I am recommending Homebrew do, and with a way smaller team. What we do is also nowhere near enough, but the bar is in hell.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#248

Post by nebezb »

ryandrake wrote: post #132
nebezb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he’s asking what you think a reasonable support timeline is. An open source project supporting hardware 6 years old is pretty awesome.

6 years is really not a long time at all. You can probably find heaps of open source software out there that compiles and runs perfectly on 20 year old PCs. It's not like the maintainer has to do much to retain support--they just have to not make the software dependent on new operating systems. Bits don't rot.

Bits certainly don’t rot and you’re welcome to stay on the latest stable version that runs on your architecture.

And if you want new bits with the new features, those aren’t the same bits and that work isn’t free.

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#249

Post by rmnclmnt »

aydgn wrote: post #13

Farewell, Homebrew. It's been a good run. - 2019 Intel iMac user.

Any modern Linux distro works great on Intel Macs. Been daily driving with Debian 13 initially and now NixOS on my MBP2015, have not used the MacOS Sequoia partition for months!

Re: Homebrew 7.0.0

#250

Post by mikae1 »

setopt wrote: post #195
mikae1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where do you draw the line between system packages and user facing apps? If it works in Homebrew, I almost always pick Homebrew. :) I have a pretty good feeling for what works since for the past few years I've mostly used an atomic distro (Aurora, based on Universal Blue, based on Fedora). It just comes naturally for me on Fedora too. I've found that this way you can get many of the stability pros of using an atomi…

> I've found that this way you can get many of the stability pros of using an atomic distro even on a non-atomic one. Digression, but I’m curious since you brought it up: Are you saying that Silverblue-based distros are noticeably more stable than Fedora? Or is it more a theoretical benefit, that you believe more in the long-term stability of that architecture?

> Are you saying that Silverblue-based distros are noticeably more stable than Fedora?

TBH, I can only say it's far more stable than openSUSE, Ubuntu and Manjaro which are the non-atomic distros I've used for a long time.

Aurora has never broken and I've never had any major problems that I can recall in over two years. I never initiate updates of the system, my Flatpaks or Homebrew. That happens in the background and whenever i restart (without me noticing).

It's Linux for those who have work to do and don't want to be a sysadmin for their desktop.

Post reply on HN