6 ms·

I used debian for over 10 years and never managed to contribute anything. 10 Minutes after using homebrew for the first time I sent in a PR to update a package

I used debian for over 10 years and never managed to contribute anything. 10 Minutes after using homebrew for the first time I sent in a PR to update a package to the latest version and update the built dependencies.

nothrabannosir 8y ago
Honestly, as both a Mac and a Debian user, I’m not sure which one I prefer. I understand your frustration, but random strangers not being allowed to push updates to my operating system in 5.34 seconds doesn’t sound all bad. To me. (Obviously not that TFA paints a rosy picture..)
- giovannibajo1 8y ago
  Those changes are reviewed by maintainers. The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects. On the contrary, older projects tend to be too reactionary when it comes to infrastructure tools, so in turn they get very slow interactions. This becomes a demotivator for anybody who is used to more efficient workflows. It is not a coincidence that the author became demotivated after doing some professional experience.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    > The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects > On the contrary, older projects tend to be too reactionary when it comes to infrastructure tools, so in turn they get very slow interactions Well said. 'Open source' doesn't say anything about infrastructure. But it's just as important.
  - msh 8y ago
    > The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects. That sounds like a security risk to me.
    - pawelmurias 8y ago
      How much safer is it if pushing in a malicious change takes two months?
    - sidcom 8y ago
      I had to re-read it too. He does not say that the same dev should do all these things
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > but random strangers not being allowed to push updates to my operating system in 5.34 seconds doesn’t sound all bad. To me. So that's what the frustrating to maintainers crumbling infrastructure and crappy tooling are for. Now it all makes sense! Actually, I'd very much prefer quickly pushed updates in case of severe security issues. Debian had lots of really ancient packages with problems in "stable" last time I looked.
  - skymt 8y ago
    If there's a severe security issue, Debian will quickly push an update containing a backported version of the fix, assuming you have the debian-security repository enabled (which you should). Just because the version number on the package is old doesn't mean it's insecure. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion
    - gsich 8y ago
      The problem is: what defines a security issue. A developer (more often then not) doesn't know if a fixed bug could have lead to a security issue.
  - stouset 8y ago
    You're misunderstanding the point of Debian. Debian's "stable" release is that. Stable. No updates are issued for packages except for critical security updates, which are backported to the released version. It's essentially an LTS release. This isn't what everyone wants or needs, but if you do, Debian does it very well.
    - rleigh 8y ago
      Homebrew is effectively a "rolling release" with fast turnover of package versions. So in that sense it's not directly comparable to Debian stable (or even unstable). That rapid turnover has led to numerous breaking bugs over the last five years or so that I've been using it. It's a lot simpler, but it also lacks the sophisticated versioned dependencies which dpkg/apt provide. Both have their tradeoffs, but I wouldn't want to use Homebrew for anything serious; it can break at any moment, and can be very painful to manage. It's got better over the years, but still has some way to go to match up to Linux package management.
aboutruby 8y ago
Same for node packages, and same for rubgems. Some package managers are just better than others. Seems to me like either snap or Homebrew Linux are the way to go. ArchLinux also has a reasonable packaging experience.
throwaway30012 8y ago
> 10 Minutes after using homebrew for the first time I sent in a PR to update a package to the latest version and update the built dependencies. And that's exactly why I use and trust Debian.
- justinsaccount 8y ago
  It's a package that I am one of the upstream developers for. The PR involved changing the version from x.y.2 to x.y.3 and removing a no longer needed build dependancy. > And that's exactly why I use and trust Debian. Comments like this are why you are an asshole, mr throwaway30012.

nothrabannosir 8y ago

Honestly, as both a Mac and a Debian user, I’m not sure which one I prefer. I understand your frustration, but random strangers not being allowed to push updates to my operating system in 5.34 seconds doesn’t sound all bad. To me. (Obviously not that TFA paints a rosy picture..)

giovannibajo1 8y ago
Those changes are reviewed by maintainers. The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects. On the contrary, older projects tend to be too reactionary when it comes to infrastructure tools, so in turn they get very slow interactions. This becomes a demotivator for anybody who is used to more efficient workflows. It is not a coincidence that the author became demotivated after doing some professional experience.
- ethbro 8y ago
  > The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects > On the contrary, older projects tend to be too reactionary when it comes to infrastructure tools, so in turn they get very slow interactions Well said. 'Open source' doesn't say anything about infrastructure. But it's just as important.
- msh 8y ago
  > The fact that a random stranger is able to push a change and get it reviewed, approved, merged, and available in minutes should be the goal of most open source projects. That sounds like a security risk to me.
  - pawelmurias 8y ago
    How much safer is it if pushing in a malicious change takes two months?
  - sidcom 8y ago
    I had to re-read it too. He does not say that the same dev should do all these things
lazyjones 8y ago
> but random strangers not being allowed to push updates to my operating system in 5.34 seconds doesn’t sound all bad. To me. So that's what the frustrating to maintainers crumbling infrastructure and crappy tooling are for. Now it all makes sense! Actually, I'd very much prefer quickly pushed updates in case of severe security issues. Debian had lots of really ancient packages with problems in "stable" last time I looked.
- skymt 8y ago
  If there's a severe security issue, Debian will quickly push an update containing a backported version of the fix, assuming you have the debian-security repository enabled (which you should). Just because the version number on the package is old doesn't mean it's insecure. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion
  - gsich 8y ago
    The problem is: what defines a security issue. A developer (more often then not) doesn't know if a fixed bug could have lead to a security issue.
- stouset 8y ago
  You're misunderstanding the point of Debian. Debian's "stable" release is that. Stable. No updates are issued for packages except for critical security updates, which are backported to the released version. It's essentially an LTS release. This isn't what everyone wants or needs, but if you do, Debian does it very well.
  - rleigh 8y ago
    Homebrew is effectively a "rolling release" with fast turnover of package versions. So in that sense it's not directly comparable to Debian stable (or even unstable). That rapid turnover has led to numerous breaking bugs over the last five years or so that I've been using it. It's a lot simpler, but it also lacks the sophisticated versioned dependencies which dpkg/apt provide. Both have their tradeoffs, but I wouldn't want to use Homebrew for anything serious; it can break at any moment, and can be very painful to manage. It's got better over the years, but still has some way to go to match up to Linux package management.

aboutruby 8y ago

Same for node packages, and same for rubgems. Some package managers are just better than others. Seems to me like either snap or Homebrew Linux are the way to go. ArchLinux also has a reasonable packaging experience.

throwaway30012 8y ago

> 10 Minutes after using homebrew for the first time I sent in a PR to update a package to the latest version and update the built dependencies. And that's exactly why I use and trust Debian.

justinsaccount 8y ago
It's a package that I am one of the upstream developers for. The PR involved changing the version from x.y.2 to x.y.3 and removing a no longer needed build dependancy. > And that's exactly why I use and trust Debian. Comments like this are why you are an asshole, mr throwaway30012.