5 ms·

Possibly because many people use their software and are very happy with it without running into those issues and addressing them would be a tremendous amount of

• stephenr 9y ago
  They have put in work to actively prevent use as root, even with binary packages. This isn't just "its going to take too long", this is "fuck you, we know better than every OS vendor on the planet"
  • orf 9y ago
    Packages are often downloaded from third party sites, blindly running those with Sufi sounds like a terrible idea. Most developer Mac's are single user anyway. It's not like apt, yum or WU where the updates come from a trusted source.
    • stephenr 9y ago
      The "trusted" source in this case is Homebrew. The rest of your argument makes no sense, because homebrew is designed to be a trusted source - the recipes aren't just downloaded from any random URL. Being single user doesn't make installing software user owned any less of a bad idea.
      • orf 9y ago
        ... the recepies then download code from random sources. Obviously vetted sources, but it's not a central repository with all of the packages that is controlled by Homebrew like the other package managers you list. It's just a big git repository of recepies, which are exactly that. Instructions on how to combine things (source code, binaries, flags etc) from external sources.
        • stephenr 9y ago
          Not random, specific source archives, listed in the recipe, along with a known hash of the file being downloaded. Given that, it effectively is a central repo that is controlled by Homebrew.
      • Myrmornis 9y ago
        > Being single user doesn't make installing software user owned any less of a bad idea. Can you explain why you believe that?