6 ms·

It’s a big deal for Homebrew, which is written in Ruby and uses the version shipped with macOS to install itself.

by polpo 7y ago

jakobegger 7y ago
I think that telling users to execute a shell command to install software is not the smartest idea in any case (eg. no way to verify signatures of installed software) A standard installer package would be much better.
- hk__2 7y ago
  > I think that telling users to execute a shell command to install software is not the smartest idea in any case (eg. no way to verify signatures of installed software) Installing via a shell command has nothing to do with the (in)ability to verify signatures. You aren’t more protected running a random installer package than an auditable shell script from the official Homebrew repo. Also, Homebrew supports more installation methods including cloning the git repo by yourself or un-taring an archive.
  - jakobegger 7y ago
    Installers are signed, scripts piped from curl to ruby are not. Homebrew circumvents all the protections built into macOS (like Gatekeeper / Xprotect etc) for convenience. I don't think this method for distributing software has much of a future.
frutiger 7y ago
The bootstrap script can just as easily download a ruby binary as its first step.
blumomo 7y ago
I'm curious why this is a big deal. Naively, I'd suppose that they change their current install script from "ruby: download and install brew" to: "shell: download and install ruby, then install brew". They could even have their shell script download a package that installs both.
Redoubts 7y ago
They already bring in ruby for installs on ancient MacOS, they'll just do the same here when the time comes. https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1135934513173811200 https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1135934513173811200
hhas01 7y ago
Don’t be daft. If the Homebrew team aren’t already busting ass to rewrite brew in Objective-C, and negotiating to get it distributed on AppStore or—ideally—included in Xcode as standard, then they’ll have no-one but themselves to blame when they utterly fail to capitalize on the massive market opportunity Apple has handed them here. Believe me, porting brew is a nothing price and the simplest step by far. This is a once-in-a-product’s-lifetime chance for a proven FOSS platform not only to grab ten million new users but to influence a global platform vendor’s direction too. Fail to seize this opportunity or blow it execution, and you won’t get another (I speak from painful experience here).

It’s a big deal for Homebrew, which is written in Ruby and uses the version shipped with macOS to install itself.

by polpo 7y ago

It’s a big deal for Homebrew, which is written in Ruby and uses the version shipped with macOS to install itself.

I think that telling users to execute a shell command to install software is not the smartest idea in any case (eg. no way to verify signatures of installed software) A standard installer package would be much better.

hk__2 7y ago
> I think that telling users to execute a shell command to install software is not the smartest idea in any case (eg. no way to verify signatures of installed software) Installing via a shell command has nothing to do with the (in)ability to verify signatures. You aren’t more protected running a random installer package than an auditable shell script from the official Homebrew repo. Also, Homebrew supports more installation methods including cloning the git repo by yourself or un-taring an archive.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  Installers are signed, scripts piped from curl to ruby are not. Homebrew circumvents all the protections built into macOS (like Gatekeeper / Xprotect etc) for convenience. I don't think this method for distributing software has much of a future.

frutiger 7y ago

The bootstrap script can just as easily download a ruby binary as its first step.

blumomo 7y ago

I'm curious why this is a big deal. Naively, I'd suppose that they change their current install script from "ruby: download and install brew" to: "shell: download and install ruby, then install brew". They could even have their shell script download a package that installs both.

Redoubts 7y ago

They already bring in ruby for installs on ancient MacOS, they'll just do the same here when the time comes. https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1135934513173811200 https://twitter.com/mistydemeo/status/1135934513173811200

hhas01 7y ago

Don’t be daft. If the Homebrew team aren’t already busting ass to rewrite brew in Objective-C, and negotiating to get it distributed on AppStore or—ideally—included in Xcode as standard, then they’ll have no-one but themselves to blame when they utterly fail to capitalize on the massive market opportunity Apple has handed them here. Believe me, porting brew is a nothing price and the simplest step by far. This is a once-in-a-product’s-lifetime chance for a proven FOSS platform not only to grab ten million new users but to influence a global platform vendor’s direction too. Fail to seize this opportunity or blow it execution, and you won’t get another (I speak from painful experience here).