4 ms·

Completely agree with this. I think the last 2 or 3 FreeBSD installs I did didn't actually use any tools other than the base system. Then again we're a couple

by m0xte 6y ago

Completely agree with this. I think the last 2 or 3 FreeBSD installs I did didn't actually use any tools other than the base system. Then again we're a couple of years off "step 1: install powershell on your Ubuntu box" so the Linux guys don't get the last laugh. Platform creep is nasty. Trying not to knacker my macOS desktop at the moment by installing brew on it and doing the same.

Macha 6y ago
We've kind of gone the other direction, with step 1 being to install bash on windows. Though you could install powershell on Ubuntu if you wanted: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell-core-on-linux?view=powershell-7#ubuntu-1804 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/instal...
wwright 6y ago
If you do work in the UNIX world, I’d say it’s pretty hard to use macOS without homebrew/Nix or at least Docker
kurito 6y ago
How would it knacker the macOS desktop? I'm honestly curious, as I view brew as an indispensable tool on pretty much anything I do on a daily basis. I don't see it as replacing anything, but rather as supplementing macOS in so many aspects.
- m0xte 6y ago
  It’s more about keeping the machine clean. All systems “creep” and turn up a mess if you don’t maintain them well. So in this case of brew it brings a lot of stuff in that isn’t vendor supported. Which is backed up with time machine. If it ends up borked (which happened to me a couple of times) it’s a lot to unpick. Thus I prefer to avoid and use native tools to the platform. All the native tools I need are available from the package manager on a Linux distribution which is far easier to reproduce therefore I prefer to do that there. Also honestly I rather like the native BSD stuff. It’s very complete.
qwerty456127 6y ago
> Platform creep is nasty. Why? Why not just consider the kernel, the rest of the OS core, the userland and the GUI completely distinct products? GNU seems the best userland to the date (because BSD is more antique and Windows had rudimentary until recently). The new Windows userland (PowerShell and .Net Core) are growing awesome. Both are OS-independent, as well as BSD. Why even associate them with a particular OS? How choosing a userland differs from choosing a programming language?
- m0xte 6y ago
  Why? Because portability, standardisation, documentation and quality. Something GNU manages to screw up pretty well.
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    Why not standardize and document every layer of the system separately? E.g. I prefer a userland as advanced as possible and a kernel to be lightweight and stable so I can choose GNU userland on BSD and I'm even looking forward to actually switch to PowerShell (on BSD or Linux). You favor long-term standardization and stability so you might prefer BSD userland on a Linux o whatever a kernel (which you can be forced to choose because of hardware or some other requirements). You probably are ok with competing vendors offering alternative apps solving same tasks on the same OS. You hardly believe everybody should use the same OS-specific programming language. Why should there be the same kernel+userland combination for everyone?

by m0xte 6y ago

Macha 6y ago

We've kind of gone the other direction, with step 1 being to install bash on windows. Though you could install powershell on Ubuntu if you wanted: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell-core-on-linux?view=powershell-7#ubuntu-1804 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/instal...

wwright 6y ago

If you do work in the UNIX world, I’d say it’s pretty hard to use macOS without homebrew/Nix or at least Docker

kurito 6y ago

How would it knacker the macOS desktop? I'm honestly curious, as I view brew as an indispensable tool on pretty much anything I do on a daily basis. I don't see it as replacing anything, but rather as supplementing macOS in so many aspects.

m0xte 6y ago
It’s more about keeping the machine clean. All systems “creep” and turn up a mess if you don’t maintain them well. So in this case of brew it brings a lot of stuff in that isn’t vendor supported. Which is backed up with time machine. If it ends up borked (which happened to me a couple of times) it’s a lot to unpick. Thus I prefer to avoid and use native tools to the platform. All the native tools I need are available from the package manager on a Linux distribution which is far easier to reproduce therefore I prefer to do that there. Also honestly I rather like the native BSD stuff. It’s very complete.

qwerty456127 6y ago

> Platform creep is nasty. Why? Why not just consider the kernel, the rest of the OS core, the userland and the GUI completely distinct products? GNU seems the best userland to the date (because BSD is more antique and Windows had rudimentary until recently). The new Windows userland (PowerShell and .Net Core) are growing awesome. Both are OS-independent, as well as BSD. Why even associate them with a particular OS? How choosing a userland differs from choosing a programming language?

m0xte 6y ago
Why? Because portability, standardisation, documentation and quality. Something GNU manages to screw up pretty well.
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  Why not standardize and document every layer of the system separately? E.g. I prefer a userland as advanced as possible and a kernel to be lightweight and stable so I can choose GNU userland on BSD and I'm even looking forward to actually switch to PowerShell (on BSD or Linux). You favor long-term standardization and stability so you might prefer BSD userland on a Linux o whatever a kernel (which you can be forced to choose because of hardware or some other requirements). You probably are ok with competing vendors offering alternative apps solving same tasks on the same OS. You hardly believe everybody should use the same OS-specific programming language. Why should there be the same kernel+userland combination for everyone?