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

Homebrew 1.0.0

brew.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 255 posts

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#101

Post by amorphid »

OskarS wrote: post #99
FabHK wrote: post #94

Brew is awesome. Note though that it gathers anonymous aggregate user behaviour analytics and reports to Google Analytics, see https://git.io/brew-analytics . You can opt out with brew analytics off

That's a thing they shouldn't enable by default, but I don't mind it. As a developer, anonymous usage data has helped me out enough times. People! Be nice to your fellow developers! When something asks you to send anonymized usage data, do it!

I disagree. As a friend of mine said, "if you don't trust a software package, don't use it."

I have paid exactly $0 for Homebrew. Reporting usage statistics makes it better, and I'm happy to be chip in to help out.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#102

Post by kminehart »

philplckthun wrote: post #49
matt4077 wrote: post #4

Among all the software I use, Homebrew must be the one giving me the least trouble. I have 100 installed packages and I don't remember the last time anything didn't work. Plus, for anything I care about, updates seem to always take less than a day, usually it's almost instantaneous. In comparison with MacPorts before, it's like night and day. npm/pip/mix/bundler all seem to periodically conspire to waste a few hours…

So npm is bad in your opinion, because it correctly handles different dependencies on packages with varying versions, screwing up? Or is the problem the vast js ecosystem? I don't think that "tree X" can be a good argument against using any kind of package manager.

It's just popular to hate JavaScript and npm right now.

It's not perfect, but it's not bad either.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#104

Post by _RPM »

laurent123456 wrote: post #31

Homebrew is quite an achievement, it grew in complexity over the years, yet remained reliable and kept a user-friendly interface. It's also very simple to create packages, it took me less 30 min to learn how to create a package and to deploy it. In comparison last time I checked, creating deb packages is absurdly complex, and I usually just give up and provide a Bash file instead.

I find your statement laughable. Brew and Debian's package manager aren't even comparable.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#105

Post by amorphid »

cupantae wrote: post #61
paublyrne wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use Linux myself, but am curious as to why this has been so heavily downvoted.

I personally don't use Mac OS(X), but what I understand is that Homebrew is a project designed to give the functionality of a Linux command-line package manager to OSX. For most (all? Slackware...) Linux distributions, there is ONE package manager: for Debian/Ubuntu it's APT, for Arch it's Pacman, for RedHat & friends it's RPM, etc. There is exactly one, because all the files which aren't user data or configuration a…

My issue with those APT on Debian is that I almost always have to add another PPA to download a version of something that I actually want to use. That reduces the utility of APT in my view. Having a crowdsourced list of Homebrew packages to install would be fabulous.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#106

Post by kminehart »

mikepurvis wrote: post #53
Flimm wrote: post #19

I'm excited about Homebrew potentially coming to Linux. When I first started using OS X more regularly, I was surprised by how better an experience OS X + Homebrew is compared to Ubuntu/Debian repositories + PPAs/third-party repositories.

What don't you like about PPAs? I find them a great experience as both a user and maintainer.

I disagree that they are a "great experience" for users.

Here's my experience with PPAs:

1. Is it already in the Ubuntu / Debian repositories? Nope.

2. Search google for "Ubuntu ".

3. Find some random website like some stack exchange question that tells me what couple of commands to run to get it into my repositories, or risk trying to navigate this disaster of a site.[1]

4. Finally, install the package!

On the other end of the spectrum, (this may be unfair and biased because this is what I"m familiar with), on Arch Linux, to get community maintained packages:

1. yaourt

2. hit corresponding number

3. answer prompts. (This step gives me the opportunity to analyze the build scripts if I so choose, which includes the source location.)

4. done.

[1]https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas

Edit: Actually that's not really a fair comparison. I forgot that Arch does not come with yaourt preinstalled. I would have the same complaints about downloading the tarball, unzipping, makepkg, and installing the package on Arch, so take my complaints with a grain of salt. I'm sure it's a good experience with a similar tool on Ubuntu.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#107

Post by _d8fd »

Pastina wrote: post #54

I had uninstalled homebrew this week because it stopped functioning. Out of nowhere, I started getting a ruby error related to a particular package and every CLI call would fail because of it. As someone who works with Go, it's sad to see an error bubbling up and not being gracefully handled.

I had errors with Homebrew and Go this week. In both cases, it was an issue with Websense (also known as Forcepoint). Might your issue be related to that?

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#108

Post by panglott »

tangue wrote: post #51
_kyran wrote: post #5

Thanks to Mike and everyone else that has contributed to Homebrew. I couldn't imagine how difficult it would be managing command line programs on a Mac without it.

I'm wondering if Macs would be as successful with developers without homebrew.

Mac OS X came out in 2001, and there was a lot of immediate adoption by people using emacs and bash: It became the largest consumer distro of a Unix-based system overnight. (look for all the old articles about how to upgrade from tcsh to bash).

Homebrew was successful because there were developers who wanted it. Is the Mac more successful as a developer platform because of it? Possibly.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#109

Post by beachstartup »

moridin007 wrote: post #88
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I recently got a new mac and I decided to give brew a spin as my package manager. I was unimpressed with many aspects of the experience- for example, getting weird snarky messages and incorrect advice when I attempted to install texlive- but this seals it. Back to Macports it is. I'll be sure to tell others about this.

Been using Brew for as long as i can remember. Most of the message usually require a `brew doctor` or `brew update` command which completely fixes the issue. And i cant even remember the last time i had to do that.. When they brought in brew cask i was completely blown away and i use brew exclusively for installing almost everything on my mac. I tried macports at first, but bailed out of that after i shot myself in t…

i must be the only person on earth that can't get brew to work right.

every so often i'll try to install something with brew, and it just won't work. the last thing i'm trying to do on planet earth is spend 30 minutes debugging a packager on my workstation (as opposed to on servers, where i do this literally all day long), so i just don't bother.

Re: Homebrew 1.0.0

#110

Post by s_kilk »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #92
s_kilk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtful, homebrew doesn't do any kind of dependency management, so it would be a strict downgrade from pip, gem, cabal, etc Edit: See comment from rogual elsewhere in this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12547076

That's an exaggeration. We definitely do dependency management, we just don't allow formulae in core to pin against arbitrary versions of software because it often means security updates are never tracked. We are going to loosen this slightly but not dramatically: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/620

Thanks for the clarification. However, if Foo depends on Bar, will homebrew track the dependency so that I can't upgrade Bar to a version incompatible with the existing installation of Foo? I recall running into that issue a while back, and it gave the impression of version tracking being an install-time-only deal.
Post reply on HN