3 ms·

Linuxbrew, like Homebrew, is useful for non-invasive non-system/infrastructure packages. Compared to system package managers, it is (arguably) simpler to use a

by Athas 8y ago

Linuxbrew, like Homebrew, is useful for non-invasive non-system/infrastructure packages. Compared to system package managers, it is (arguably) simpler to use and contribute to, and often has more up-to-date packages (especially compared to e.g. RHEL) because it tries to solve a much simpler problem. I think there is room for a package manager that focuses more on managing your user-specific CLI tools than your system libraries. I don't like macOS all that much, but Homebrew is really good.

saagarjha 8y ago
The “benefits” you are listing for Homebrew are interesting, because you can also look at them as disadvantages: > it is (arguably) simpler to use and contribute to, and often has more up-to-date packages (especially compared to e.g. RHEL) because it tries to solve a much simpler problem. Unfortunately, this often means it breaks or doesn’t do certain things…doing something simple like getting an old version of a package is nigh unto impossible, both because there doesn’t seem to be a built-in way to do this, and also because old packages are constantly removed from the package index. The fact that package inclusion is easy is nice, but it also opens issues that we’re already seeing in the npm community with regards to malicious packages. The ability to install software to a non-system location is useful, but that’s really not something that Homebrew itself really recommends doing on macOS because it breaks a lot of things. It’s really only designed for a single user machine with the regular user being an admin, which is likely true for the majority of its authors, but for those who don’t fit into this you need to resort to a bunch of hacks to make it work.
- Athas 8y ago
  I think the latter restriction is because multi-user macOS are rare. Linuxbrew is very much oriented towards non-root uses and works quite well on a multi-user system. In fact, unprivileged use on multi-user systems is the main reason I think Linuxbrew is useful. I agree that Homebrew very aggressively focuses only on the common case (newest version, few/no options). I think it's the right choice, as Homebrew is never the only way to install something. It would be bad if RPM had made the same design tradeoff, though.

by Athas 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago

The “benefits” you are listing for Homebrew are interesting, because you can also look at them as disadvantages: > it is (arguably) simpler to use and contribute to, and often has more up-to-date packages (especially compared to e.g. RHEL) because it tries to solve a much simpler problem. Unfortunately, this often means it breaks or doesn’t do certain things…doing something simple like getting an old version of a package is nigh unto impossible, both because there doesn’t seem to be a built-in way to do this, and also because old packages are constantly removed from the package index. The fact that package inclusion is easy is nice, but it also opens issues that we’re already seeing in the npm community with regards to malicious packages. The ability to install software to a non-system location is useful, but that’s really not something that Homebrew itself really recommends doing on macOS because it breaks a lot of things. It’s really only designed for a single user machine with the regular user being an admin, which is likely true for the majority of its authors, but for those who don’t fit into this you need to resort to a bunch of hacks to make it work.

Athas 8y ago
I think the latter restriction is because multi-user macOS are rare. Linuxbrew is very much oriented towards non-root uses and works quite well on a multi-user system. In fact, unprivileged use on multi-user systems is the main reason I think Linuxbrew is useful. I agree that Homebrew very aggressively focuses only on the common case (newest version, few/no options). I think it's the right choice, as Homebrew is never the only way to install something. It would be bad if RPM had made the same design tradeoff, though.