5 ms·

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 + Homeb

by Flimm 10y ago

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.

pcr0 10y ago
Isn't it there already? https://github.com/Linuxbrew/brew https://github.com/Linuxbrew/brew
- Flimm 10y ago
  I don't know much about Linuxbrew, but that looks like a fork, not Homebrew officially supporting Linux.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikemcquaid 10y ago
    We're attempting to merge the two projects so eventually Linuxbrew/brew can go away. It's a relatively slow process, though.
    - DeadBabyOrgasm 10y ago
      What about chromebrew [0] (homebrew for chrome os)? [0]: https://github.com/skycocker/chromebrew https://github.com/skycocker/chromebrew
      - mikemcquaid 10y ago
        It doesn't appear related so would be hard to merge.
        DeadBabyOrgasm 10y ago
        Really? From a user standpoint it seemed very similar. Either way, I'd definitely be interested in something like homebrew for ChromeOS. Guides for cross-platform capabilities would be most welcome!
paublyrne 10y ago
I don't use Linux myself, but am curious as to why this has been so heavily downvoted.
- Derbasti 10y ago
  Because Linuxes have their own package managers already, and Linuxers are outraged that some macOS freak is invading their lawn with an alternative.
- khattam 10y ago
  I guess it is because default linux package managers already do a great job.
- cupantae 10y ago
  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 are owned by some package or other. It's all well and good when there's a clear need for this on OSX, and so Homebrew must keep up to date with the official software management and keep itself contained, not breaking anything. Having a second package manager on Linux, which doesn't treat Linux as the main target platform, seems both pointless and asking for trouble. Alternatively, you could be harsh and figure that the downvoters were saying, "No, you don't prefer Homebrew. You prefer your distribution's package manager, and thou shalt use it correctly."
  - paublyrne 10y ago
    Ha, thanks that's a comprehensive answer. Maybe have been a bit of both, looks like the downvotes have been countered now anyway.
  - amorphid 10y ago
    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.
mikepurvis 10y ago
What don't you like about PPAs? I find them a great experience as both a user and maintainer.
- kminehart 10y ago
  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 <package name>". 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 <package name> 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 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.
strictfp 10y ago
My experience is quite the opposite. Lots of missing packages in brew compared to debian. And brew has been nothing but trouble for all the devs in my team. It keeps messing up /usr/local permissions for some reason. And if you don't update brew frequently it will bork itself. Apt-get or better yet aptitude is rock solid.
- rocket69 10y ago
  They are more solid, but never up to date with new bits, so you're stuck managing your own curated list of ppa's.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Apt is as up to date as the repo you point it at. It's pretty common to use Debian stable and vendor/community repos for specific packages you want more up-to-date packages of.
Nursie 10y ago
Why? By which I mean that apt is fantastic AFAICT and totally integrated into Ubuntu and Debian. Why would you want a third party package manager?
- bm5k 10y ago
  The apt user experience is terrible compared with brew.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    How so? The interface seems more or less identical to me. I'm not going to deny it's good and brings great stuff to the Mac, I'm just not seeing the advantages.
    - bm5k 10y ago
      Other than "in every way possible"? The only thing that is as easy in apt as brew is installing packages. Searching, getting info about a package, updating the list of available packages, are all much easier with homebrew.
      - saurik 10y ago
        A reasonable thing to do would be to decide what the deficiencies are and first try to talk to the developers of APT about fixing them, and then as a second (lesser) option potentially deciding to make a higher-level wrapper or supplementary tool which helps these use cases. A totally unreasonable thing to do would be to attempt to replace the entire APT ecosystem with a different tool.
      - kasabali 10y ago
        > Searching apt search .... > getting info about a package apt show <package> > updating the list of available packages apt update > are all much easier with homebrew You gotta be kidding me
jacobsenscott 10y ago
Apt is the second worst linux package manager. RPM is the first worst.
- aorth 10y ago
  `apt` isn't that bad, really—it's been available for a year or two now, and will likely replace apt-get and friends eventually (apt-cache, dpkg, dselect, are pretty horrible user experience really). RPM hasn't been a package manager for like 10 years—now it's just a package format. `yum` and its successor `dnf` are actually fantastic package managers on Red Hat family stuff.
  - strictfp 10y ago
    IMO yum is slow as molasses, feature poor and really bad at resolving conflicts. Haven't tried dnf though.

by Flimm 10y ago

pcr0 10y ago

Isn't it there already? https://github.com/Linuxbrew/brew https://github.com/Linuxbrew/brew

Flimm 10y ago
I don't know much about Linuxbrew, but that looks like a fork, not Homebrew officially supporting Linux.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikemcquaid 10y ago
  We're attempting to merge the two projects so eventually Linuxbrew/brew can go away. It's a relatively slow process, though.
  - DeadBabyOrgasm 10y ago
    What about chromebrew [0] (homebrew for chrome os)? [0]: https://github.com/skycocker/chromebrew https://github.com/skycocker/chromebrew
    - mikemcquaid 10y ago
      It doesn't appear related so would be hard to merge.
      - DeadBabyOrgasm 10y ago
        Really? From a user standpoint it seemed very similar. Either way, I'd definitely be interested in something like homebrew for ChromeOS. Guides for cross-platform capabilities would be most welcome!

paublyrne 10y ago

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

Derbasti 10y ago
Because Linuxes have their own package managers already, and Linuxers are outraged that some macOS freak is invading their lawn with an alternative.
khattam 10y ago
I guess it is because default linux package managers already do a great job.
cupantae 10y ago
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 are owned by some package or other. It's all well and good when there's a clear need for this on OSX, and so Homebrew must keep up to date with the official software management and keep itself contained, not breaking anything. Having a second package manager on Linux, which doesn't treat Linux as the main target platform, seems both pointless and asking for trouble. Alternatively, you could be harsh and figure that the downvoters were saying, "No, you don't prefer Homebrew. You prefer your distribution's package manager, and thou shalt use it correctly."
- paublyrne 10y ago
  Ha, thanks that's a comprehensive answer. Maybe have been a bit of both, looks like the downvotes have been countered now anyway.
- amorphid 10y ago
  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.

mikepurvis 10y ago

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

kminehart 10y ago
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 <package name>". 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 <package name> 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 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.

strictfp 10y ago

My experience is quite the opposite. Lots of missing packages in brew compared to debian. And brew has been nothing but trouble for all the devs in my team. It keeps messing up /usr/local permissions for some reason. And if you don't update brew frequently it will bork itself. Apt-get or better yet aptitude is rock solid.

rocket69 10y ago
They are more solid, but never up to date with new bits, so you're stuck managing your own curated list of ppa's.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Apt is as up to date as the repo you point it at. It's pretty common to use Debian stable and vendor/community repos for specific packages you want more up-to-date packages of.

Nursie 10y ago

Why? By which I mean that apt is fantastic AFAICT and totally integrated into Ubuntu and Debian. Why would you want a third party package manager?

bm5k 10y ago
The apt user experience is terrible compared with brew.
- Nursie 10y ago
  How so? The interface seems more or less identical to me. I'm not going to deny it's good and brings great stuff to the Mac, I'm just not seeing the advantages.
  - bm5k 10y ago
    Other than "in every way possible"? The only thing that is as easy in apt as brew is installing packages. Searching, getting info about a package, updating the list of available packages, are all much easier with homebrew.
    - saurik 10y ago
      A reasonable thing to do would be to decide what the deficiencies are and first try to talk to the developers of APT about fixing them, and then as a second (lesser) option potentially deciding to make a higher-level wrapper or supplementary tool which helps these use cases. A totally unreasonable thing to do would be to attempt to replace the entire APT ecosystem with a different tool.
    - kasabali 10y ago
      > Searching apt search .... > getting info about a package apt show <package> > updating the list of available packages apt update > are all much easier with homebrew You gotta be kidding me

jacobsenscott 10y ago

Apt is the second worst linux package manager. RPM is the first worst.

aorth 10y ago
`apt` isn't that bad, really—it's been available for a year or two now, and will likely replace apt-get and friends eventually (apt-cache, dpkg, dselect, are pretty horrible user experience really). RPM hasn't been a package manager for like 10 years—now it's just a package format. `yum` and its successor `dnf` are actually fantastic package managers on Red Hat family stuff.
- strictfp 10y ago
  IMO yum is slow as molasses, feature poor and really bad at resolving conflicts. Haven't tried dnf though.