5 ms·

I prefer Macports and macOS over Linux package managers because Macports is like a rolling-release package archive without the disadvantages of rolling release

I prefer Macports and macOS over Linux package managers because Macports is like a rolling-release package archive without the disadvantages of rolling release on Linux. On Linux, I can use Arch and have the latest of all software - which means I have the disadvantage of having to stay up-to-date on things like dhcpcd and systemd and coreutils. I don't want to have the latest versions of these things or spend time routinely upgrading them piecemeal. Or I can use Debian stable and everything is stable, but if I want something new I have to compile it myself, or hope there's a backport. With macOS and Macports I get a stable base system that Apple keeps up-to-date security-wise with monolithic updates that I don't have to worry about, and Macports has the latest for things like Emacs or even the GNU coreutils.

petre 6y ago
Yup Macports would upgrade everything and break stuff like FFI code. That is exactly why I prefer to use a Linux LTS release like Debian, Ubuntu or even openSuSE Leap with it's 18 month release cycle and uneventful upgrades that you can now even roll back.
carlhjerpe 6y ago
You can use nix on "any" Linux distro with the unstable channel and get the most bleeding edge software from nixs binary cache, or Linuxbrew, flatpak, snap, appimage.
jorams 6y ago
> which means I have the disadvantage of having to stay up-to-date on things like dhcpcd and systemd and coreutils In the past 8 years of regularly updating my rolling release Linux systems, I have spent significantly more time reading headlines about macOS releases breaking software, than I have spent staying up-to-date with dhcpcd, systemd and coreutils. They are ridiculously stable.