4 ms·

I don't understand the attraction of homebrew. Macports is effectively the same as the *BSD ports and supports the MacOS environment in terms of using the nativ

by rswail 5y ago

I don't understand the attraction of homebrew. Macports is effectively the same as the *BSD ports and supports the MacOS environment in terms of using the native compiler and toolchains. I looked at Homebrew and saw that (at the time) it wanted to blast crap into /usr and did weird root shit. Macports does everything in /opt/macports and keeps itself clean and out of the way of either Apple's OS (and the locked down root volume) or other MacOS native apps that install in /Applications.

throwaway4good 5y ago
Apple should create an integrated package manager for OSX. And I agree: I have only had bad experiences with Homebrew and the "cuteness" of its user interface just becomes a massive annoyance when the core of it is not working.
riffraff 5y ago
Back in the day homebrew allowed you to use system libraries for stuff like openssl while macports did not, which was nice for some things, especially at a time when there were no binary ports which meant installing something like imagemagick would take a loooooong time because of all the dependencies. Also brew cask was pretty nice, and generally the experience to add a port was not as seamless as adding a formula to homebrew. I very much prefer macports, anyway.
klmr 5y ago
> it wanted to blast crap into /usr Homebrew only ever writes into `/usr/local`, which was unused by macOS until very recently (though unfortunately a few third-party tools also use it and lead to very occasional conflicts with Homebrew). The original rationale for using `/usr/local` over `/opt` was that, at the time several widely-used software packages had hard-coded installation paths and would require extensive patching to work in other locations [1]. This hasn’t been true for a long time though. On systems with Apple M1, Homebrew finally made the move to `/opt/homebrew`. > and did weird root shit On the contrary, the philosophy of Homebrew is that package installations should never require superuser privileges. The only time Homebrew does “root shit” is when initially setting up `/usr/local` writability. Not weird at all. Though it does mean that Homebrew is effectively unusable (and a very bad idea!) on a multiuser system. [1]: https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ#why-does-homebrew-prefer-i-install-to-usrlocal https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ#why-does-homebrew-prefer-i-install-...
- pxc 5y ago
  Setting /usr/local's ownership to some unprivileged user is definitely weird root shit
thiht 5y ago
That’s not my experience with Homebrew at all. I use it on my work laptop on which I don’t have root access and Hombrew has been extremely easy to configure to install everything in a local folder.
lucideer 5y ago
I'm a Macports user. Here are some things I find attractive about Homebrew: 1. While the range of packages available is only slightly larger, the support story of those packages tends to be MUCH better than Macports: a not-insignificant number of ports haven't been updated since they were first published. 2. Homebrew user docs are much better. The Macports contributor documentation is comprehensive and detailed, but their user docs are obtuse/non-existent. Homebrew contributor documentation is poor, but that lack affects a much smaller set of people than Macports' lack. 3. Homebrew is the supported install method for many pieces of open-source software: even if they also have a port, any support they give / tickets you read will be targetted to the Homebrew installation method. The 1st and 3rd points may be mainly down to network effect but I feel like the 2nd point is very addressable and will also contribute to 1 & 3 in a big way.

by rswail 5y ago

throwaway4good 5y ago

Apple should create an integrated package manager for OSX. And I agree: I have only had bad experiences with Homebrew and the "cuteness" of its user interface just becomes a massive annoyance when the core of it is not working.

riffraff 5y ago

Back in the day homebrew allowed you to use system libraries for stuff like openssl while macports did not, which was nice for some things, especially at a time when there were no binary ports which meant installing something like imagemagick would take a loooooong time because of all the dependencies. Also brew cask was pretty nice, and generally the experience to add a port was not as seamless as adding a formula to homebrew. I very much prefer macports, anyway.

klmr 5y ago

> it wanted to blast crap into /usr Homebrew only ever writes into `/usr/local`, which was unused by macOS until very recently (though unfortunately a few third-party tools also use it and lead to very occasional conflicts with Homebrew). The original rationale for using `/usr/local` over `/opt` was that, at the time several widely-used software packages had hard-coded installation paths and would require extensive patching to work in other locations [1]. This hasn’t been true for a long time though. On systems with Apple M1, Homebrew finally made the move to `/opt/homebrew`. > and did weird root shit On the contrary, the philosophy of Homebrew is that package installations should never require superuser privileges. The only time Homebrew does “root shit” is when initially setting up `/usr/local` writability. Not weird at all. Though it does mean that Homebrew is effectively unusable (and a very bad idea!) on a multiuser system. [1]: https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ#why-does-homebrew-prefer-i-install-to-usrlocal https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ#why-does-homebrew-prefer-i-install-...

pxc 5y ago
Setting /usr/local's ownership to some unprivileged user is definitely weird root shit

thiht 5y ago

That’s not my experience with Homebrew at all. I use it on my work laptop on which I don’t have root access and Hombrew has been extremely easy to configure to install everything in a local folder.

lucideer 5y ago

I'm a Macports user. Here are some things I find attractive about Homebrew: 1. While the range of packages available is only slightly larger, the support story of those packages tends to be MUCH better than Macports: a not-insignificant number of ports haven't been updated since they were first published. 2. Homebrew user docs are much better. The Macports contributor documentation is comprehensive and detailed, but their user docs are obtuse/non-existent. Homebrew contributor documentation is poor, but that lack affects a much smaller set of people than Macports' lack. 3. Homebrew is the supported install method for many pieces of open-source software: even if they also have a port, any support they give / tickets you read will be targetted to the Homebrew installation method. The 1st and 3rd points may be mainly down to network effect but I feel like the 2nd point is very addressable and will also contribute to 1 & 3 in a big way.