3 ms·

"There is only True Way of installing software: using the Apple store. If you do anything else you are bad and you should feel bad." Isn't this sentiment a bit

"There is only True Way of installing software: using the Apple store. If you do anything else you are bad and you should feel bad." Isn't this sentiment a bit excessive. Homebrew is a perfectly safe and accepted way of installing software.

diffeomorphism 7y ago
Will that be affected by the notarization requirements in the future? https://discourse.brew.sh/t/code-signing-installed-executables/2131/9 https://discourse.brew.sh/t/code-signing-installed-executabl...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Homebrew will remain unaffected, since it does not set the quarantine bit on its binaries (which are usually invoked from the terminal anyways). Homebrew Cask opts in to Gatekeeper so it’ll be subject to notarization requirements.
heelhook 7y ago
Not only that, there are and were multiple ways of installing software in Linux, both back in 2000 and now. Notoriously ./autogen.sh && make && make install wasn't mentioned but installing via `rpm|dpkg|apt|yum` is?
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  autogen.sh isn't intended to be invoked for user installs. Users are supposed to invoke ./configure, with the configure script being generated by a developer invoking autogen.sh and readily packaged as part of the software's tarball.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > Not only that, there are and were multiple ways of installing software in Linux Technically true, but practically false. To this day I get told that I shouldn't be even trying to use software that isn't in the repo. There are still a whole lot of applications released with a Windows binary and a tar.xz of source for Linux. At DebConf 2014, none other than Linus himself bitched out the community for how difficult distributing things for Linux was. It should not require an army of maintainers across a score of repos to distribute software. And it isn't like the technology to make it simple isn't available. AppImage has been around since 2004 (it was called Klik at the time) and its existence has and continues to be largely ignored by the community. Other parts of the community are openly hostile to the very concept of simple application distribution, like Drew DeVault. The situation is so awful, that recently when I wanted to use an application on my Linux laptop I found it easier to run the Windows version under WINE than get the Linux version installed. And the most infuriating thing about it all is how incredibly resistant the community is to doing anything to change this situation.
  - kick 7y ago
    AppImage & snapd & flatpak are poor solutions to a real problem. It's better to wait until someone comes up with a good solution than accept a bad one.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      I would agree about snapd and flatpak, but AppImage is pretty close to ideal. The only more ideal way I can think of is if AppImage didn't require FUSE and could embed an icon (there was a proposal for an embedded icon standard in ELF, which was thoroughly ignored by the community). It has been 20 years. How much longer should we wait for functionality the original Macintosh included in 1984?
jangid 7y ago
True. It isn't possible to work on Mac without Homebrew. This is exaggeration but true for all practical purposes.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I know a lot of developers who get by fine without Homebrew. Either they use another package manager or they’re happy with downloading applications and packages from the internet and using those.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
Not to mention dragging apps manually from disk images and launching installer packages from disk images.
_ph_ 7y ago
It ist not only a bit excessive, it is completely wrong. Most software for the Mac comes as disk images from the creator. You just drag the application to your programs folder and thats it. That is the way I installed most programs on my Mac. The App Store is nice to have but a less common way of installing programs. Also, services like the notarisation offered by Apple show clearly, while they love their App Store, they clearly support alternatives.
GordonS 7y ago
I'm no fan of MacOS, but I certainly agree with you on this point - there are a multitude of ways to install software on MacOS, and it doesn't go out of it's way to prevent me from using those.

diffeomorphism 7y ago

Will that be affected by the notarization requirements in the future? https://discourse.brew.sh/t/code-signing-installed-executables/2131/9 https://discourse.brew.sh/t/code-signing-installed-executabl...

saagarjha 7y ago
Homebrew will remain unaffected, since it does not set the quarantine bit on its binaries (which are usually invoked from the terminal anyways). Homebrew Cask opts in to Gatekeeper so it’ll be subject to notarization requirements.

heelhook 7y ago

Not only that, there are and were multiple ways of installing software in Linux, both back in 2000 and now. Notoriously ./autogen.sh && make && make install wasn't mentioned but installing via `rpm|dpkg|apt|yum` is?

tannhaeuser 7y ago
autogen.sh isn't intended to be invoked for user installs. Users are supposed to invoke ./configure, with the configure script being generated by a developer invoking autogen.sh and readily packaged as part of the software's tarball.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> Not only that, there are and were multiple ways of installing software in Linux Technically true, but practically false. To this day I get told that I shouldn't be even trying to use software that isn't in the repo. There are still a whole lot of applications released with a Windows binary and a tar.xz of source for Linux. At DebConf 2014, none other than Linus himself bitched out the community for how difficult distributing things for Linux was. It should not require an army of maintainers across a score of repos to distribute software. And it isn't like the technology to make it simple isn't available. AppImage has been around since 2004 (it was called Klik at the time) and its existence has and continues to be largely ignored by the community. Other parts of the community are openly hostile to the very concept of simple application distribution, like Drew DeVault. The situation is so awful, that recently when I wanted to use an application on my Linux laptop I found it easier to run the Windows version under WINE than get the Linux version installed. And the most infuriating thing about it all is how incredibly resistant the community is to doing anything to change this situation.
- kick 7y ago
  AppImage & snapd & flatpak are poor solutions to a real problem. It's better to wait until someone comes up with a good solution than accept a bad one.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    I would agree about snapd and flatpak, but AppImage is pretty close to ideal. The only more ideal way I can think of is if AppImage didn't require FUSE and could embed an icon (there was a proposal for an embedded icon standard in ELF, which was thoroughly ignored by the community). It has been 20 years. How much longer should we wait for functionality the original Macintosh included in 1984?

jangid 7y ago

True. It isn't possible to work on Mac without Homebrew. This is exaggeration but true for all practical purposes.

saagarjha 7y ago
I know a lot of developers who get by fine without Homebrew. Either they use another package manager or they’re happy with downloading applications and packages from the internet and using those.

Synaesthesia 7y ago

Not to mention dragging apps manually from disk images and launching installer packages from disk images.

_ph_ 7y ago

It ist not only a bit excessive, it is completely wrong. Most software for the Mac comes as disk images from the creator. You just drag the application to your programs folder and thats it. That is the way I installed most programs on my Mac. The App Store is nice to have but a less common way of installing programs. Also, services like the notarisation offered by Apple show clearly, while they love their App Store, they clearly support alternatives.

GordonS 7y ago

I'm no fan of MacOS, but I certainly agree with you on this point - there are a multitude of ways to install software on MacOS, and it doesn't go out of it's way to prevent me from using those.