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

231–240 of 516 posts

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#231

Post by taylodl »

Steltek wrote: post #123
acomjean wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It saddens me as I see this massive infusion of developer time and energy being donated to one of the biggest tech companies around. If that effort had instead gone into making Linux better, which Homebrew obviously builds on, where would Linux workstations be now? Would I get a nice Linux laptop from my company instead of being forced to use a MacBook?

Contributing to Linux also helps the biggest tech companies around - namely IBM and Oracle amongst a host of others. When you contribute to free and open source software you should know and understand you're providing your labor for free to tech behemoths. For most it's a labor of love and aligns with their passion and so everything is cool but you run across a few who's feelings get hurt and feel like they're getting ripped-off.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#232

Post by smoldesu »

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Homebrew was my least favorite part of the MacOS experience, which is a shame since it was basically the most important piece of software I had installed on that thing.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#233

Post by wpm »

dylan604 wrote: post #205
Gelob wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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.

so, you don't do a 'yum update' before installing software on your system (or 'apt-get update' or whatever)? Are you also the type of person that refuses to update system software because "it takes too long, and I'm too busy"?

No, I don’t like forced 5 minute stops to my work.

Yes, I’m the type of person who only updates on my schedule when notified, or when I need something.

These little tools installed by home brew aren’t just little tools, they’re dependencies for whatever else they’re used in. The fact that I need package “X” doesn’t mean I want package Y, something entirely unrelated, updated without my consent.

It’s MY fucking computer. Let ME decide what software gets installed on it and when.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#234

Post by loeg »

dylan604 wrote: post #219
loeg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This means that all users on the system share the same MacPorts software. This has an additional impact that it means that it requires privilege to install software there. > Homebrew, on the other hand, uses the system toolchain and tries to avoid using root. What? Homebrew wants you to change ownership of /usr/local to your individual user and refuses to run without doing so. How is that any different as far "as a…

Huh? I'm on Big Sur running homebrew. 'ls -l /usr' reveals that /usr/local is root:wheel just like all other folders under /usr. How exactly is homebrew changing ownership?

Any chance you're on Apple Silicon? For some reason homebrew uses /usr/local on Intel macs and /opt/homebrew on ARM macs.

Anyway, this requirement is well documented and not new:

https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues?q=is%3Aissue+%2Fusr%...

http://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Installatio...

Homebrew asks users (on Intel macs) to change the ownership of /usr/local to their local user. And it refuses to run under sudo.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#235

Post by dave_aiello »

OskarS wrote: post #35
acomjean wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s Weird that Apple doesn’t do this themselves. It’s not like they don’t have a cash. I can understand them not wanting to do it themselves. I don't think they want to take on the responsibility for maintaining all those packages (for legal reasons or otherwise). Because it's a "not officially Apple" thing, Homebrew can probably get away with a "no warranty" sticker that an official Apple project couldn't. What A…

I don't know about the "DUMP TRUCK OF MONEY", but a program that formalizes support for the Open Source community on MacOS would be a win for Apple as well as Apple's customers.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#236

Post by CydeWeys »

Jestar342 wrote: post #25
toyg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it him who was turned down by Apple and Google, after he built homebrew...?

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 whole team's culture sour and result in way more damage than any one person can make up for through their individual contributions.

It's clear from reading his thoughts on the matter why Google didn't hire him, and it's also clear he still doesn't understand why either.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#237

Post by ikawe »

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.

Thanks to Max Howell for having the initial vision and maintaining it for the first 4 years!

Thanks to Mike McQuaid (et al) for the last 10!

https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/graphs/contributors

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#238

Post by rattray »

freedomben wrote: post #223

I don't see Linux mentioned at all. I'm not complaining, but as a Linux user who uses dnf/yum for everything there, but also has some needs for things that either aren't packaged at all, or are but move too slowly and break often (youtube-dl) I use brew. I love that it installs in my home directory. Linux Brew is awesome to have for that. I don't expect Linux will ever be a prime focus, but I do wish it would be easi…

I didn't even know Homebrew worked on Linux!

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#239

Post by Macha »

quesera wrote: post #202
cmehdy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some users I would argue brew was indeed better - I can't judge for the technical level, but definitely so for the UX and troubleshooting. I might have liked MacPorts with my current experience, but when I first needed to install CLIs and tools I did not have extensive knowledge of shells and paths and such, and MacPorts felt significantly less "integrated" especially when something would fail (as opposed to brew…

You're probably right about Homebrew feeling more comfortable for new users. Opinions on Homebrew may diverge with the answers to "How would you prefer to install? a) curl pipe to shell, or b) Download a DMG, double-click to install, and update your PATH." :)

a) curl pipe to shell

b) Download a DMG, double-click to install

These are not morally that different, the DMG installation can also do pretty much whatever, and I doubt people are picking apart the DMG to find the install script to verify that either.

Re: Homebrew 3.0

#240

Post by jedbrown »

woodruffw wrote: post #229
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.

Homebrew maintainer here: I'm sorry that we don't meet your expectations. Two things for your consideration: 1. It's uniquely visible among system package managers. When people have problems with a package in `apt` or `dnf`, they find a community or third-party repository for the package or bug the upstream directly. By contrast, Homebrew has always been visible on GitHub, does not require a special login to a bugtra…

Point 2 here is huge. If Apple cared about open source or cross-platform developers, they would pay at least one full-time Homebrew developer and upgrades would be smooth. It speaks volumes that they are swimming in money and can't be bothered to make a token gesture.
Post reply on HN