13 ms·

I sure wish Homebrew would cease being cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS. It is a recent development, leaves so very much to be desired w

I sure wish Homebrew would cease being cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS. It is a recent development, leaves so very much to be desired while also leaving a mess, boxes permissions, takes its annoying metaphor too far and has no advantage over any other package manager. Why the constant advertisement for adoption? Give me MacPorts any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

pjmlp 5y ago
Call me old fashioned, I just use the UNIX that is already on the box.
- bloopernova 5y ago
  I'm assuming you're still referring to MacOS? The various tools included in MacOS are often old or BSD versions instead of GNU tools. There's lots of gotchas when writing scripts on MacOS that will run as part of a Linux build pipeline.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Use Linux to target Linux. Yes I am referring to the certified POSIX userspace on macOS. Portable UNIX software should use POSIX anyway not GNUisms.
chana_masala 5y ago
> takes its annoying metaphor too far It really does!
- Maursault 5y ago
  I think Homebrew's entire reason for existence is its metaphor, and was possibly developed by alcoholics for alcoholics.
  - pxc 5y ago
    When Homebrew was written, neither it nor MacPorts had widespread binary caching by default like they do today. Homebrew was written to take some shortcuts to reduce compilation time vs. MacPorts at that time. It was also written to be simpler to hack on and package for, since the author found MacPorts harder to work with than he'd have liked. I think it takes the metaphor too far but I've seen Homebrew fans praise it as making things like repo management accessible to them when they started using Homebrew without prior experience with other package managers. So maybe it's useful.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pkulak 5y ago
Installing packages in system folders without sudo is just... not right.
awestroke 5y ago
Homebrew has been around for a long time. I've never seen a better alternative for macOS, do you think you could mention any of them? Regarding MacPorts: > MacPorts distributes source code that is compiled on install, so Macports is generally much slower to install packages. Macports installs packages under “/opt/local”. Macports uses root, which can lead to users goofing up their system or workplace policy issues Sounds horrifying
- amake 5y ago
  > > MacPorts distributes source code that is compiled on install, so Macports is generally much slower to install packages False. Binaries, built from source, are used by default.
- siraben 5y ago
  Homebrew has been pretty poor IME. It is not possible to pin the homebrew repository per project, dependency confusion happens a lot (try installing different versions of core libraries at the same time), the way it messes with macOS file system permissions in /usr/local should be considered a risk (and not working with multiple users), and it’s generally very slow. At this point I only use Homebrew for casks and Nix for everything else on macOS, which is far more up to date, reproducible, and cross-platform.
  - rapsey 5y ago
    Homebrew does not need to be in /usr/local everything will work fine running from your home folder.
    - pxc 5y ago
      You lose most binary caching if you do that, which is the major advantage of Homebrew over MacPorts cited by the relevant poster.
  - cpach 5y ago
    Hm. Using Nix looks interesting (I’m a fellow Mac user). When you do that, do you also need to compile the applications during installation…? (E.g. stuff written in Rust/C/C++) Do you need to edit the “recipes” a lot or do they generally Just Work?
dmitriid 5y ago
> cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS It is the de facto default package manager as most installation instructions default to it if they mention a package manager on MacOS > It is a recent development 1. It's been around for 12 years already 2. Being more recent doesn't preclude it from being a de facto default > Why the constant advertisement for adoption It's not "constant advertisement". This is what being the de facto default means: people are using the de facto default and not something that you perceive as the default
- Maursault 5y ago
  AppStore is the default package manager in macOS since 2008, released fully mature a full year before Homebrew was conceived. Homebrew is still not mature, and only works for one user on a multiuser system. Every other available package manager doesn't have this flaw. Homebrew is worse than forgoing package management and just using git. Homebrew is pure hype, and without the hype, it has nothing.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > AppStore is the default package manager in macOS since 2008 It's not a package manager > Homebrew is worse than forgoing package management and just using git So you're using AppStore as your package manager? > Homebrew is pure hype, and without the hype, it has nothing. Ah yes, the well-known decade-old hype that everyone keeps advertising.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      A package manager or package-management system is a collection of software tools that automates the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing computer programs for a computer in a consistent manner. [0] If it installs, upgrades, configures and removes programs, App Store is indeed one of these. Apple invented package managers in 2008 (LOL). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_manager
      - 5y ago
jolux 5y ago
In my experience, the Homebrew package registry is bigger and fresher than MacPorts. It also supports GUI apps, and it's much faster because it uses binaries by default. I suggest MacPorts work on catching up in these ways if they want to compete with Homebrew. I am not a fan of Homebrew's design but I'm a very pragmatic person and I don't have time to be ideological about my package manager.
- l2dy 5y ago
  > the Homebrew package registry is bigger and fresher than MacPorts The Homebrew package registry is fresher but not bigger than MacPorts. 5901 packages in homebrew-core versus about 11000 ports in MacPorts (not counting subports). Package freshness depends on contributions. A bigger collection is inherently harder to maintain, yet MacPorts has fewer active contributors than Homebrew. > It also supports GUI apps MacPorts doesn't have a separate cask-like feature, but there are some GUI apps in the aqua category, most of which are built from source with binary cache. If you need to manage proprietary and/or binary GUI apps with a package manager, you could still use Homebrew casks for that and MacPorts for everything else.
  - jolux 5y ago
    > 5901 packages in homebrew-core versus about 11000 ports in MacPorts (not counting subports). Good to know that it is still actually bigger, but that’s really only relevant to me if it’s a superset of Homebrew’s registry, and in the past I have found packages I needed that were in Homebrew but not MacPorts. If I had to guess I would bet MacPorts has a lot of older stuff in it. > Package freshness depends on contributions. Of course, I understand this. It’s the main reason I have to use Homebrew. I don’t want to have to maintain my own packages. > If you need to manage proprietary and/or binary GUI apps with a package manager, you could still use Homebrew casks for that and MacPorts for everything else. This is what I mean about being ideological. What benefit do I get from installing two different package managers when one would suffice? It’s definitely not enough to merit doing so.
    - pxc 5y ago
pknomad 5y ago
ehh.. I worked in platform/systems team for companies that were step below FANG and we would routinely use brew (with ansible and shell scripts) to setup engineering and office laptops. I can't recall other package managers that have the same following or support as brew.
- Maursault 5y ago
  MacPorts has active support. Join macports-users@lists.macports.org and report your issue, you get instruction from members of the listserv within minutes. Report a bug, and it is routed and assigned within the hour, usually solved within days. Sometimes bugs take a little longer to solve, but generally they always are. In regards to Homebrew support, what are you referring to? I can't find any active Homebrew support, just the FAQ which details what isn't supported and gives lame reasons why.
sneak 5y ago
> I sure wish Homebrew would cease being cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS. Me too. It embeds Google spyware without consent, sending a unique identifier from your machine every time you use it. It's disturbing seeing people say "just run `brew install $PACKAGE`" where $PACKAGE is privacy or local-first software without including the requisite `brew analytics off` on the line above it.
- Maursault 5y ago
  It is a case of the blind leading the blind. Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?
3np 5y ago
I haven’t used OS X in ages, but wouldn’t Nix be a great option?
AstroDogCatcher 5y ago
As a recent Mac adopter after spending 10 years as a Linux user, Homebrew is exactly what I need it to be. Linux OS package managers are, almost by necessity, full of outdated packages which are not the versions I want to use for day-to-day CLI applications. Snaps, Flatpaks and AppImages all have their own downsides due to half-baked isolation goals and the associated usability compromises. Language-specific package managers are a mixed bag, but too narrow in scope when thinking about usage of tools rather than development based on libraries. Maybe Nix or the Arch AUR are a better option, but they come with a learning curve and/or stability compromise. I don't care how the packages are arranged on my Mac; the system is too locked down for me to really have the level of control I'd like anyway, so better to just accept the usability advantages and get on withy life.
- pxc 5y ago
  > I don't care how the packages are arranged on my Mac; the system is too locked down for me to really have the level of control I'd like anyway, so better to just accept the usability advantages and get on with [my] life. This is a valuable perspective. I wonder how much macOS primes users in general to value usability over other dimensions of good design. (I also wonder how much better a time I'd have on macOS if I adopted this attitude.)
  - Maursault 5y ago
    I think we'd all have a better time if Apple would let us run current versions of xnu with only Darwin without having to piece everything together to end up with a system than might work but just won't because xnu is proprietary. I think there are valid cases where Darwin can be a more attractive choice than Linux, but there's just no interest because xnu is unattainable, and the alternative is using a Hackintosh kernel with degrees of stability rather than it being straight up rock solid stability. I don't mind the requirement of Macintosh hardware, but that isn't good enough for Apple, you either take the whole system or nothing (or live vicariously dependent on a few intrepid kernel hackers).
sovietmudkipz 5y ago
Woah, people have some issues with homebrew? Legit I’ve been a happy user of homebrew forever; I never stopped to analyze it much though. If you would be so kind to elaborate? I’m curious what the pain points or issues are with homebrew.
- password4321 5y ago
  Homebrew is rough if you use it for everything but haven't run it for a while, then need any (one) thing updated or installed quickly. It's probably best still since most popular means most problems discovered and fixed quickly, and will remain so as long as having updates forced only loses the stragglers. I personally can't use it anymore now that my MacOS version (Mojave) is not supported so everything has to build from source and Rust fails. Ask HN: Best Alternative to Homebrew in 2021? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29079096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29079096
  - Maursault 5y ago
    > I personally can't use it anymore now that my MacOS version (Mojave) is not supported so everything has to build from source and Rust fails. This is pretty interesting, that Homebrew abandons recent systems. I am running MacPorts on Mojave with no issues (yet). However, I am strongly considering going back to High Sierra for it's ability to build 32-bit packages, which Mojave won't do (though it will still run 32-bit applications with a warning). The only thing that keeps me from doing so immediately is that I have macOS install exhaustion. I'm a little beat up because I am doing custom macOS installs, and it takes a little effort to prevent the installer from installing all the crap I don't want. The easier way to do it is just to let it install, then remove it. I'm a little something that I prefer to go the other route, and I'm not aware of anyone else fighting the default system install to assist. I have no doubt that MacPorts runs flawlessly on High Sierra, because I have it running flawlessly on Mountain Lion, and I have a functional but frozen install of MacPorts on Snow Leopard, but I am aware there are others that have live and functional MacPorts running on Snow Leopard with a minimal amount of effort, and I'm pretty sure the same is true of Leopard, Tiger and Jaguar, though the number of users gets smaller the further back we go. It can not be overstated how awesome that is, that no system version is completely left behind. This exposes that MacPorts has some seriously resiliant development.

pjmlp 5y ago

Call me old fashioned, I just use the UNIX that is already on the box.

bloopernova 5y ago
I'm assuming you're still referring to MacOS? The various tools included in MacOS are often old or BSD versions instead of GNU tools. There's lots of gotchas when writing scripts on MacOS that will run as part of a Linux build pipeline.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Use Linux to target Linux. Yes I am referring to the certified POSIX userspace on macOS. Portable UNIX software should use POSIX anyway not GNUisms.

chana_masala 5y ago

> takes its annoying metaphor too far It really does!

Maursault 5y ago
I think Homebrew's entire reason for existence is its metaphor, and was possibly developed by alcoholics for alcoholics.
- pxc 5y ago
  When Homebrew was written, neither it nor MacPorts had widespread binary caching by default like they do today. Homebrew was written to take some shortcuts to reduce compilation time vs. MacPorts at that time. It was also written to be simpler to hack on and package for, since the author found MacPorts harder to work with than he'd have liked. I think it takes the metaphor too far but I've seen Homebrew fans praise it as making things like repo management accessible to them when they started using Homebrew without prior experience with other package managers. So maybe it's useful.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pkulak 5y ago

Installing packages in system folders without sudo is just... not right.

awestroke 5y ago

Homebrew has been around for a long time. I've never seen a better alternative for macOS, do you think you could mention any of them? Regarding MacPorts: > MacPorts distributes source code that is compiled on install, so Macports is generally much slower to install packages. Macports installs packages under “/opt/local”. Macports uses root, which can lead to users goofing up their system or workplace policy issues Sounds horrifying

amake 5y ago
> > MacPorts distributes source code that is compiled on install, so Macports is generally much slower to install packages False. Binaries, built from source, are used by default.
siraben 5y ago
Homebrew has been pretty poor IME. It is not possible to pin the homebrew repository per project, dependency confusion happens a lot (try installing different versions of core libraries at the same time), the way it messes with macOS file system permissions in /usr/local should be considered a risk (and not working with multiple users), and it’s generally very slow. At this point I only use Homebrew for casks and Nix for everything else on macOS, which is far more up to date, reproducible, and cross-platform.
- rapsey 5y ago
  Homebrew does not need to be in /usr/local everything will work fine running from your home folder.
  - pxc 5y ago
    You lose most binary caching if you do that, which is the major advantage of Homebrew over MacPorts cited by the relevant poster.
- cpach 5y ago
  Hm. Using Nix looks interesting (I’m a fellow Mac user). When you do that, do you also need to compile the applications during installation…? (E.g. stuff written in Rust/C/C++) Do you need to edit the “recipes” a lot or do they generally Just Work?

dmitriid 5y ago

> cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS It is the de facto default package manager as most installation instructions default to it if they mention a package manager on MacOS > It is a recent development 1. It's been around for 12 years already 2. Being more recent doesn't preclude it from being a de facto default > Why the constant advertisement for adoption It's not "constant advertisement". This is what being the de facto default means: people are using the de facto default and not something that you perceive as the default

Maursault 5y ago
AppStore is the default package manager in macOS since 2008, released fully mature a full year before Homebrew was conceived. Homebrew is still not mature, and only works for one user on a multiuser system. Every other available package manager doesn't have this flaw. Homebrew is worse than forgoing package management and just using git. Homebrew is pure hype, and without the hype, it has nothing.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > AppStore is the default package manager in macOS since 2008 It's not a package manager > Homebrew is worse than forgoing package management and just using git So you're using AppStore as your package manager? > Homebrew is pure hype, and without the hype, it has nothing. Ah yes, the well-known decade-old hype that everyone keeps advertising.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    A package manager or package-management system is a collection of software tools that automates the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing computer programs for a computer in a consistent manner. [0] If it installs, upgrades, configures and removes programs, App Store is indeed one of these. Apple invented package managers in 2008 (LOL). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_manager
    - 5y ago

jolux 5y ago

In my experience, the Homebrew package registry is bigger and fresher than MacPorts. It also supports GUI apps, and it's much faster because it uses binaries by default. I suggest MacPorts work on catching up in these ways if they want to compete with Homebrew. I am not a fan of Homebrew's design but I'm a very pragmatic person and I don't have time to be ideological about my package manager.

l2dy 5y ago
> the Homebrew package registry is bigger and fresher than MacPorts The Homebrew package registry is fresher but not bigger than MacPorts. 5901 packages in homebrew-core versus about 11000 ports in MacPorts (not counting subports). Package freshness depends on contributions. A bigger collection is inherently harder to maintain, yet MacPorts has fewer active contributors than Homebrew. > It also supports GUI apps MacPorts doesn't have a separate cask-like feature, but there are some GUI apps in the aqua category, most of which are built from source with binary cache. If you need to manage proprietary and/or binary GUI apps with a package manager, you could still use Homebrew casks for that and MacPorts for everything else.
- jolux 5y ago
  > 5901 packages in homebrew-core versus about 11000 ports in MacPorts (not counting subports). Good to know that it is still actually bigger, but that’s really only relevant to me if it’s a superset of Homebrew’s registry, and in the past I have found packages I needed that were in Homebrew but not MacPorts. If I had to guess I would bet MacPorts has a lot of older stuff in it. > Package freshness depends on contributions. Of course, I understand this. It’s the main reason I have to use Homebrew. I don’t want to have to maintain my own packages. > If you need to manage proprietary and/or binary GUI apps with a package manager, you could still use Homebrew casks for that and MacPorts for everything else. This is what I mean about being ideological. What benefit do I get from installing two different package managers when one would suffice? It’s definitely not enough to merit doing so.
  - pxc 5y ago

pknomad 5y ago

ehh.. I worked in platform/systems team for companies that were step below FANG and we would routinely use brew (with ansible and shell scripts) to setup engineering and office laptops. I can't recall other package managers that have the same following or support as brew.

Maursault 5y ago
MacPorts has active support. Join macports-users@lists.macports.org and report your issue, you get instruction from members of the listserv within minutes. Report a bug, and it is routed and assigned within the hour, usually solved within days. Sometimes bugs take a little longer to solve, but generally they always are. In regards to Homebrew support, what are you referring to? I can't find any active Homebrew support, just the FAQ which details what isn't supported and gives lame reasons why.

sneak 5y ago

> I sure wish Homebrew would cease being cited as a standard or defacto package manager for macOS. Me too. It embeds Google spyware without consent, sending a unique identifier from your machine every time you use it. It's disturbing seeing people say "just run `brew install $PACKAGE`" where $PACKAGE is privacy or local-first software without including the requisite `brew analytics off` on the line above it.

Maursault 5y ago
It is a case of the blind leading the blind. Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?

3np 5y ago

I haven’t used OS X in ages, but wouldn’t Nix be a great option?

AstroDogCatcher 5y ago

As a recent Mac adopter after spending 10 years as a Linux user, Homebrew is exactly what I need it to be. Linux OS package managers are, almost by necessity, full of outdated packages which are not the versions I want to use for day-to-day CLI applications. Snaps, Flatpaks and AppImages all have their own downsides due to half-baked isolation goals and the associated usability compromises. Language-specific package managers are a mixed bag, but too narrow in scope when thinking about usage of tools rather than development based on libraries. Maybe Nix or the Arch AUR are a better option, but they come with a learning curve and/or stability compromise. I don't care how the packages are arranged on my Mac; the system is too locked down for me to really have the level of control I'd like anyway, so better to just accept the usability advantages and get on withy life.

pxc 5y ago
> I don't care how the packages are arranged on my Mac; the system is too locked down for me to really have the level of control I'd like anyway, so better to just accept the usability advantages and get on with [my] life. This is a valuable perspective. I wonder how much macOS primes users in general to value usability over other dimensions of good design. (I also wonder how much better a time I'd have on macOS if I adopted this attitude.)
- Maursault 5y ago
  I think we'd all have a better time if Apple would let us run current versions of xnu with only Darwin without having to piece everything together to end up with a system than might work but just won't because xnu is proprietary. I think there are valid cases where Darwin can be a more attractive choice than Linux, but there's just no interest because xnu is unattainable, and the alternative is using a Hackintosh kernel with degrees of stability rather than it being straight up rock solid stability. I don't mind the requirement of Macintosh hardware, but that isn't good enough for Apple, you either take the whole system or nothing (or live vicariously dependent on a few intrepid kernel hackers).

sovietmudkipz 5y ago

Woah, people have some issues with homebrew? Legit I’ve been a happy user of homebrew forever; I never stopped to analyze it much though. If you would be so kind to elaborate? I’m curious what the pain points or issues are with homebrew.

password4321 5y ago
Homebrew is rough if you use it for everything but haven't run it for a while, then need any (one) thing updated or installed quickly. It's probably best still since most popular means most problems discovered and fixed quickly, and will remain so as long as having updates forced only loses the stragglers. I personally can't use it anymore now that my MacOS version (Mojave) is not supported so everything has to build from source and Rust fails. Ask HN: Best Alternative to Homebrew in 2021? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29079096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29079096
- Maursault 5y ago
  > I personally can't use it anymore now that my MacOS version (Mojave) is not supported so everything has to build from source and Rust fails. This is pretty interesting, that Homebrew abandons recent systems. I am running MacPorts on Mojave with no issues (yet). However, I am strongly considering going back to High Sierra for it's ability to build 32-bit packages, which Mojave won't do (though it will still run 32-bit applications with a warning). The only thing that keeps me from doing so immediately is that I have macOS install exhaustion. I'm a little beat up because I am doing custom macOS installs, and it takes a little effort to prevent the installer from installing all the crap I don't want. The easier way to do it is just to let it install, then remove it. I'm a little something that I prefer to go the other route, and I'm not aware of anyone else fighting the default system install to assist. I have no doubt that MacPorts runs flawlessly on High Sierra, because I have it running flawlessly on Mountain Lion, and I have a functional but frozen install of MacPorts on Snow Leopard, but I am aware there are others that have live and functional MacPorts running on Snow Leopard with a minimal amount of effort, and I'm pretty sure the same is true of Leopard, Tiger and Jaguar, though the number of users gets smaller the further back we go. It can not be overstated how awesome that is, that no system version is completely left behind. This exposes that MacPorts has some seriously resiliant development.