4 ms·

I can't respond to all of the above but a couple stood out to me: - iTerm2 is a far cry from my typical Emacs set up...I would take e-macs with ansi-term/shell

I can't respond to all of the above but a couple stood out to me: - iTerm2 is a far cry from my typical Emacs set up...I would take e-macs with ansi-term/shell buffers over iTerm2 any day (on Linux). - Homebrew is a shim to get Linux-like packages to work in the limited terminal/shell environment of OSX (at least IMO). I would take `apt-get` over `homebrew` in a heartbeat. - Spotify actually has a native Linux client and I have used it without a problem for awhile (https://www.spotify.com/us/download/linux/ https://www.spotify.com/us/download/linux/). Although it looks like it lost its dedicated developer earlier this year: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/03/spotify-linux-no-development http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/03/spotify-linux-no-developm... There is definitely a creativity suite void (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) but you could consider setting up a Virtual Machine on Linux with VT-D passthrough to be able to use those sorts of applications. For me, I spend most of my time basically in a terminal or in an IDE...and for that, Linux fits quite well...but yeah...

ashark 10y ago
> - Homebrew is a shim to get Linux-like packages to work in the limited terminal/shell environment of OSX (at least IMO). I would take `apt-get` over `homebrew` in a heartbeat. Having a package manager that mostly keeps its hands off my core system is something I didn't realize I wanted until I tried Mac package managers (now using Homebrew). Keeping "update all the junk I've installed" and "update the system itself" separate is pretty nice, though it'd be trickier in Linux since the two concepts aren't as distinct, especially in GUI-space.
- JdeBP 10y ago
  It's a common thing in the BSD world.
guitarbill 10y ago
In theory, homebrew is inferior. In practice, I find homebrew is actually easier to use than apt/yum. For example, installing fonts or (de)installing GUI applications is simple and clean. brewfiles are awesome for machine setups. PPAs do make apt as powerful, but there's not always one for the thing you want. With homebrew, you can create your own "casks" (definitions) and tell homebrew to load them from e.g. github.
- gotofritz 10y ago
  It's all great until some mysterious happens (maybe because you tried to install your version of ruby or XCode didn't like something) and then you have to start messing with brew doctor etc and you know you are doomed. But when it works it's great
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ashark 10y ago

> - Homebrew is a shim to get Linux-like packages to work in the limited terminal/shell environment of OSX (at least IMO). I would take `apt-get` over `homebrew` in a heartbeat. Having a package manager that mostly keeps its hands off my core system is something I didn't realize I wanted until I tried Mac package managers (now using Homebrew). Keeping "update all the junk I've installed" and "update the system itself" separate is pretty nice, though it'd be trickier in Linux since the two concepts aren't as distinct, especially in GUI-space.

JdeBP 10y ago
It's a common thing in the BSD world.

guitarbill 10y ago

In theory, homebrew is inferior. In practice, I find homebrew is actually easier to use than apt/yum. For example, installing fonts or (de)installing GUI applications is simple and clean. brewfiles are awesome for machine setups. PPAs do make apt as powerful, but there's not always one for the thing you want. With homebrew, you can create your own "casks" (definitions) and tell homebrew to load them from e.g. github.

gotofritz 10y ago
It's all great until some mysterious happens (maybe because you tried to install your version of ruby or XCode didn't like something) and then you have to start messing with brew doctor etc and you know you are doomed. But when it works it's great
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]