5 ms·
Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their comput
by bluejekyll 10y ago
Yes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts.
For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over.
- vr46 10y agoHaving brew install to ~user would be grand, not just for portability, but also to isolate it across users.
- jfb 10y agoI do this. It's simple enough to install homebrew, to, say, $HOME/.homebrew. I haven't had any problems with this approach, but then, I don't use Ruby, and if I did I wouldn't use homebrew to manage it.
- mikemcquaid 10y agoWe can't relocate many binary packages (bottles) with dynamic paths like that, unfortunately, or we'd do that.
- stcredzero 10y agoYes, sure, but there's always been a presumption in those definitions that you have a multi-user system. I would say that most people today operate their computers as single users. The multiuser paradigm, is more about differing security contexts. The multiuser features are used to provide defense in depth, especially for developer machines. For me these locations are an artifact of multiuser systems days, it's generally more desirable for me to store most stuff in my home directory, such that when I upgrade computers, there's only one thing to copy over. Apple's migration tool and cloning have always worked for me.