Working on a Mac wouldn't be the same without Homebrew. Thanks for all the hard work!
I feel the same way about Linux - big thanks to the Homebrew team.
Homebrew 4.0.0
341–350 of 403 posts
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#342Yikes! This no longer shows the new formulae and casks - I've used Homebrew as a discovery tool, now I need to watch the git commits [0]! [0]: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AHomebrew%2Fhomebrew-core+...
Subscribe to the commits with an RSS reader: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/commits/master.ato...
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several years ago, when the read-only-system OS changes happened, they switched to /opt/homebrew.
By default, Homebrew requires world-writeable location in the PATH (doesn't matter if it's /opt/homebrew or /usr/local). In my opinion, this isn't a sensible choice. Homebrew, as the name implies, was built for hobbists with little regards for security. Not a problem for many, but it does make it incompatible with a corporate environment.
If it's for a corporate environment then it is being centrally configured anyway, so can just be installed from a different user?
The goal posts definitely seem to be moving over the course of this thread?
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you can nuke macports just by deleting /opt/local. It's annoying to have to recompile for sure, but at least it's a simple solution.
You can do the same thing with brew, `/opt/local/brew`
Did you mean /opt/homebrew? For Intel Macs it's /usr/local. You can't just delete it. You give up binary packages if you install it anywhere else.
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#345While I use Homebrew on my Mac — it is a major risk. I am afraid that the project is not following strict security policies and will be compromised at some point. Evil package or evil version of brew can steal or modify my data. I think this will also hurt the Mac platform. I wish Apple would invest some effort into building an App Store for cli programs. While it may be complicated for the community(require signing,…
No thank you. I don't want a walled garden where Apple has absolute authority to enforce anti-competitive policies like they do with the existing App Store (especially on iOS), and where they require you to pay an annual fee to publish anything, and where they tie everything to an AppleID.
I use a Macbook for work, and every day I go without having to create an AppleID is a good day.
What I want is a dang CLI package manager, and Homebrew is pretty alright at that. No, it's not perfect, but it's far better than anything Apple has done related to app stores.
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#346Didn't the author sunset this project to become a web3 advocate and pivot to a new project where some dubious NFT would be exchanged for package installations? I guess 2022 came and went since then...
You’re thinking of Max Howell, the original creator of Homebrew. Rest assured, Max hasn’t been part of Homebrew for years—for longer than he was ever a part of it—so he has no hand in sunsetting or making other decisions on Homebrew’s behalf.
Regarding his web3 stuff, the Homebrew developers learned about them at the same time as everyone else (there was a tweet from the official account at the time). There is no relation between both projects.
Max takes every chance he gets to mention Homebrew, so the confusion is understandable but unfortunate. Even in his web3 package manager he mentions Homebrew as if it’s the old stuff.
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#347Thank you. I tend to rely for even open source GUI apps because the experience of installing/removing packages have been smooth (at least for me) so even on Ubuntu, I find myself using brew instead of apt/snap for personal use. Side question - what can we do about improving security? Of the possibility that packages are not poisoned? Some sort of central CA/GPG or similar requiring to sign the packages or there would…
Prior discussions on package signing:
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#348As an old hand who was around when homebrew started, I feel obliged to let people know there are alternatives. If you find brew's take-over-your-system-and-youll-thank-me approach off putting, and/or you value stability over the coolness factor, MacPorts is still alive and well ( https://www.macports.org ), and in-fact has basically all the same packages brew does. In 18 years of using MacPorts, it's never messed up…
> MacPorts is still alive and well ( https://www.macports.org ), and in-fact has basically all the same packages brew does. I used macOS for a few years to try it out, and I found that Macports lacked many things I needed. Taking a quick look again, let's see... * Oclgrind: No. * Futhark: No. * GHC: Yes! And updated to boot. (But I'd expect such major programs to be in any package system.) * MLkit: No. * hledger: Yes…
MacPorts had more packages I wanted and fewer outdated packages the last time I compared them. Homebrew won the time before.
Is the Homebrew Ruby DSL much easier than the MacPorts Tcl DSL? I think the main reason Homebrew succeeded was it had binary packages before MacPorts. But a more familiar language helped probably.
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
This discussion on GitHub reveals the mindset of the Homebrew people: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/pull/6745
The Homebrew folks think this is a non-problem. You may agree or disagree, but the pull request is certainly a non-solution to this maybe-problem. Not just because it gained zero traction and did not get merged anywhere, but also because it's just an obscure band-aid. Either opt-out anonymous telemetry is a good idea, or it's a problem. If to you it's a problem, advocate for its removal in its entirety. So even if I…
The status quo is different variables and even different mechanisms for each program. Many badly documented. Only out of context is DO_NOT_TRACK obscure.
I think you know developers who reject informed consent will never adopt an informed consent model. The proposal was the best users could hope for realistically. Did you never compromise?
Re: Homebrew 4.0.0
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can see exactly how Homebrew does analytics here[1], and you can see the sum total of the information collected here[2]. No identifiable information is collected or retained. If my computer is sending data to Google then Google has my IP address and can correlate that data however they want. You simply can not claim that identifiable information isn't collected or retained unless you work for Google. I don't kno…
> I would be much more comfortable if they used something like Plausible for analytics Their intent is to migrate entirely away from Google to the San Francisco based InfluxData, which I guess is marginally better in some ways but seems to entirely miss the point of people's objections in spirit. Other than people's personal subjective trust of one US company over another, there's no inherent difference between Alpha…
> our new, self-hosted InfluxDB instance
Given that it’s a self-hosted instance, InfluxData shouldn’t be able to exfiltrate anything from it.