9 ms·

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes is your friend.

by bigdubs 10y ago

peterbraden 10y ago
Is there a way to replace all of them in one move?
- rcthompson 10y ago
  Just install all the formulae from that repository, I'd assume. They all replace some system-provided tool. I believe they install the binaries to a separate directory that you need to prepend to your $PATH in order to get your shell to default to the updated versions.
- zymhan 10y ago
  You can't really replace the underlying tools, you'd want to install the new versions in a different folder and update your Environment to point to those executables. EDIT: I'm wrong, didn't realize homebrew-dupes actually is meant to replace the OS X utils.
  - peterbraden 10y ago
    Why not replace? If there's a security flaw, I want those versions gone. EDIT: you edited :)
  - StevePerkins 10y ago
    So effectively, it's only one step better than installing Cygwin on a Windows machine? Can someone please remind me again why the MacBook is such a preffered machine for software development? For years I've been told, "You get a shell!", and "It's UNIX under the covers", etc. Except that the shell userspace is antiquated, and the UNIX flavor is BSD rather than Linux. Meaning that I'm just as out-of-sync with my target server as if I were on a Windows machine, I still have to run Docker through a VM layer, etc. Don't get me wrong, the hardware is excellant. But the software is even more locked-down and less customizable than the MS world... and just skipping the middle man and installing Linux directly is a 10x better developer experience than both.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      I agree with most of your grumbles. > Can someone please remind me again why the MacBook is such a preffered machine for software development? For me, the greatest battery life and trackpad money can buy.
      - insulanian 10y ago
        100x this. I actually could not imagine going back to mouse anymore.
    - netheril96 10y ago
      > Except that the shell userspace is antiquated, and the UNIX flavor is BSD rather than Linux. Few people use advanced features of those utilities. As a result, these two points don't make any difference. At least for me.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      I just don't get this complaint. Run brew install <package>, add a folder to PATH. Done. Anything somewhat popular (vim/git/python/ruby/graphviz, imagemagick...) is usually updated after a day and I don't remember the last time it gave me any trouble. The comparison with Windows simply doesn't work. Unix software compiles on OS X out-of-the-box. It doesn't on Windows. The conventions (pathnames, line endings, CLIs, time zones) are either the same or compatible, on Windows they're not.
    - zymhan 10y ago
      You're underestimating how helpful POSIX compliance is. Also, OS X/macOS meets the Single Unix Spec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Currently_Registered_UNIX_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Curr...
    - panglott 10y ago
      If your complaint is that the UNIX layer of Mac OS X isn't ~exactly~ like Linux, then the only way you're going to solve that problem is by running Linux instead. It's easy to get more up-to-date software with package managers.
- nu2ycombinator 10y ago
  Yes you can do. use "brew install coreutils"
  - sbd01 10y ago
    Excellent, thanks!
  - knd775 10y ago
    This is not the same thing.
Razengan 10y ago
Some may prefer Nix: http://nixos.org/nix/ http://nixos.org/nix/
- Razengan 10y ago
  HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11772686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11772686
- dilap 10y ago
  nix seems really interesting & the 'right way' to do things. but strangely, i don't really* have problems with homebrew -- maybe because it has the luxury of being built on top of a stable, known system. *i have had problems with python. i always have problems with python.
knd775 10y ago
Does anyone know if this is a bad idea? Like do any of the system provided utilities do anything special in OS X that will be broken if they are replaced? I'd like to do install these replacements, but am concerned about possible side effects.
- marcosscriven 10y ago
  In the case of Homebrew, it'll install things to 'usr/local/Cellar', and symlink them from /usr/local, leaving the OS X tools in place in /usr/bin
- x0 10y ago
  By default, it will append a "g" to all the coreutils at least, like ls -> gls, sed -> gsed, etc. And things that are already default on OS X, like curl, perl etc, will not be symlinked into /usr/local unless you force it. But personally, I changed my coreutils over a year ago to the GNU ones (via symlinks), and I force link every single package, I've never had a single issue. Though our use cases may be different, and you may have issues. In which case you can just `brew unlink $package`.

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes is your friend.

by bigdubs 10y ago

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-dupes is your friend.

peterbraden 10y ago

Is there a way to replace all of them in one move?

rcthompson 10y ago
Just install all the formulae from that repository, I'd assume. They all replace some system-provided tool. I believe they install the binaries to a separate directory that you need to prepend to your $PATH in order to get your shell to default to the updated versions.
zymhan 10y ago
You can't really replace the underlying tools, you'd want to install the new versions in a different folder and update your Environment to point to those executables. EDIT: I'm wrong, didn't realize homebrew-dupes actually is meant to replace the OS X utils.
- peterbraden 10y ago
  Why not replace? If there's a security flaw, I want those versions gone. EDIT: you edited :)
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  So effectively, it's only one step better than installing Cygwin on a Windows machine? Can someone please remind me again why the MacBook is such a preffered machine for software development? For years I've been told, "You get a shell!", and "It's UNIX under the covers", etc. Except that the shell userspace is antiquated, and the UNIX flavor is BSD rather than Linux. Meaning that I'm just as out-of-sync with my target server as if I were on a Windows machine, I still have to run Docker through a VM layer, etc. Don't get me wrong, the hardware is excellant. But the software is even more locked-down and less customizable than the MS world... and just skipping the middle man and installing Linux directly is a 10x better developer experience than both.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    I agree with most of your grumbles. > Can someone please remind me again why the MacBook is such a preffered machine for software development? For me, the greatest battery life and trackpad money can buy.
    - insulanian 10y ago
      100x this. I actually could not imagine going back to mouse anymore.
  - netheril96 10y ago
    > Except that the shell userspace is antiquated, and the UNIX flavor is BSD rather than Linux. Few people use advanced features of those utilities. As a result, these two points don't make any difference. At least for me.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I just don't get this complaint. Run brew install <package>, add a folder to PATH. Done. Anything somewhat popular (vim/git/python/ruby/graphviz, imagemagick...) is usually updated after a day and I don't remember the last time it gave me any trouble. The comparison with Windows simply doesn't work. Unix software compiles on OS X out-of-the-box. It doesn't on Windows. The conventions (pathnames, line endings, CLIs, time zones) are either the same or compatible, on Windows they're not.
  - zymhan 10y ago
    You're underestimating how helpful POSIX compliance is. Also, OS X/macOS meets the Single Unix Spec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Currently_Registered_UNIX_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Curr...
  - panglott 10y ago
    If your complaint is that the UNIX layer of Mac OS X isn't ~exactly~ like Linux, then the only way you're going to solve that problem is by running Linux instead. It's easy to get more up-to-date software with package managers.
nu2ycombinator 10y ago
Yes you can do. use "brew install coreutils"
- sbd01 10y ago
  Excellent, thanks!
- knd775 10y ago
  This is not the same thing.

Razengan 10y ago

Some may prefer Nix: http://nixos.org/nix/ http://nixos.org/nix/

Razengan 10y ago
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11772686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11772686
dilap 10y ago
nix seems really interesting & the 'right way' to do things. but strangely, i don't really* have problems with homebrew -- maybe because it has the luxury of being built on top of a stable, known system. *i have had problems with python. i always have problems with python.

knd775 10y ago

Does anyone know if this is a bad idea? Like do any of the system provided utilities do anything special in OS X that will be broken if they are replaced? I'd like to do install these replacements, but am concerned about possible side effects.

marcosscriven 10y ago
In the case of Homebrew, it'll install things to 'usr/local/Cellar', and symlink them from /usr/local, leaving the OS X tools in place in /usr/bin
x0 10y ago
By default, it will append a "g" to all the coreutils at least, like ls -> gls, sed -> gsed, etc. And things that are already default on OS X, like curl, perl etc, will not be symlinked into /usr/local unless you force it. But personally, I changed my coreutils over a year ago to the GNU ones (via symlinks), and I force link every single package, I've never had a single issue. Though our use cases may be different, and you may have issues. In which case you can just `brew unlink $package`.