3 ms·

> Homebrew has been around for a long time. Since 2009. There is no package manager younger. But it sure has a lot of hype. > I've never seen a better alterna

> Homebrew has been around for a long time. Since 2009. There is no package manager younger. But it sure has a lot of hype. > I've never seen a better alternative for macOS Because you've never looked. Every other package manager available on macOS is better than Homebrew. pkgsrc. Nix. Fink. All of them are better. Homebrew is dead last in features and stability. After using Homebrew for only a short time, you'll have a mess on your file system. Good luck cleaning it up. MacPorts will install pre-built binaries with the -b option, if you want. But building from source is superior. It's called rolling your own, because what you build is yours and yours alone, and it is more secure, allowing review of the code, has the advantage of customizing with specific variants and deeper customizations, and allows installing the most recent version of the code. With binary installs, your're stuck with whatever you get. Also, MacPorts is more compatible, will install and build from Tiger on up, anc works for all users on the system with sudo access. Homebrew abandons older systems rapidly, and only works for one user. But the most obnoxious thing about Homebrew is what it does to /usr/local, which is to say it fubars the directory and everything that lives there.

jolux 5y ago
> After using Homebrew for only a short time, you'll have a mess on your file system. Good luck cleaning it up. Been using Homebrew for a decade and haven’t had serious problems with it in a very long time. I do use asdf for versioning language runtimes though. I’m not saying it doesn’t have these problems, just that it’s possible to use without running into them, which is why I haven’t felt compelled to switch. > But building from source is superior. Not if you value your time. Also Homebrew supports it with --build-from-source, so this is really just a question of defaults. Homebrew values my time.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > just that it’s possible to use without running into them, which is why I haven’t felt compelled to switch. Try using from another user account
  - jolux 5y ago
    Sure, but that’s a known flaw, and it’s also not a use case I have. I already said I’m not a fan of it’s design, but feel compelled to use it because of its dominance. Brew is solidly a “worse is better” proposition. I do not care nearly as much about how my package manager works as long as it has the packages I need when I need them. This is the priority for user experience.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      I feel you, sudo port install <package> is way too complicated. btw, anything in brew can be anywhere else, like macports or nix, all it takes is a maintainer to sponsor it. But I have to respect your brand loyalty, even in spite of fatal flaws and less than a quarter of the packages available elsewhere. It is then recommended that you never install anything else into /usr/local. But some tools will install there by default, such as BBEdit command line tools that will default to /usr/local/bin, which actually abides by the UNIX filesystem standards by doing so.
      - jolux 5y ago
        > But I have to respect your brand loyalty, even in spite of fatal flaws and less than a quarter of the packages available elsewhere. Again, since you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing: The primary reason I use Homebrew is not because I think it has a superior design for package management or because it has the absolute greatest number of packages but because I have never once encountered a dependency that was not in its registry. It always has what I need. The same is not true of MacPorts. It is immaterial to me how many MacPorts packages exist that I don't need, because it doesn't always have the ones I do need. Here's a good example that I just found randomly right now: MacPorts Erlang: version 23.1, from September 23, 2020 (https://ports.macports.org/port/erlang/ https://ports.macports.org/port/erlang/). Homebrew Erlang: 24.2, from December 15, 2021 (https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/erlang https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/erlang). Yes, when encountering something like this, I could take the time to update the port definition. Or I could just install the version that already exists in Homebrew and get on with things. Can you understand why I would choose the latter in the absence of a need for multi-user functionality or any other real issues with brew in day-to-day usage?
wbl 5y ago
Macports uses binaries if they exist. If not it uses source.

jolux 5y ago

> After using Homebrew for only a short time, you'll have a mess on your file system. Good luck cleaning it up. Been using Homebrew for a decade and haven’t had serious problems with it in a very long time. I do use asdf for versioning language runtimes though. I’m not saying it doesn’t have these problems, just that it’s possible to use without running into them, which is why I haven’t felt compelled to switch. > But building from source is superior. Not if you value your time. Also Homebrew supports it with --build-from-source, so this is really just a question of defaults. Homebrew values my time.

Maursault 5y ago
> just that it’s possible to use without running into them, which is why I haven’t felt compelled to switch. Try using from another user account
- jolux 5y ago
  Sure, but that’s a known flaw, and it’s also not a use case I have. I already said I’m not a fan of it’s design, but feel compelled to use it because of its dominance. Brew is solidly a “worse is better” proposition. I do not care nearly as much about how my package manager works as long as it has the packages I need when I need them. This is the priority for user experience.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    I feel you, sudo port install <package> is way too complicated. btw, anything in brew can be anywhere else, like macports or nix, all it takes is a maintainer to sponsor it. But I have to respect your brand loyalty, even in spite of fatal flaws and less than a quarter of the packages available elsewhere. It is then recommended that you never install anything else into /usr/local. But some tools will install there by default, such as BBEdit command line tools that will default to /usr/local/bin, which actually abides by the UNIX filesystem standards by doing so.
    - jolux 5y ago
      > But I have to respect your brand loyalty, even in spite of fatal flaws and less than a quarter of the packages available elsewhere. Again, since you don't seem to be reading what I'm writing: The primary reason I use Homebrew is not because I think it has a superior design for package management or because it has the absolute greatest number of packages but because I have never once encountered a dependency that was not in its registry. It always has what I need. The same is not true of MacPorts. It is immaterial to me how many MacPorts packages exist that I don't need, because it doesn't always have the ones I do need. Here's a good example that I just found randomly right now: MacPorts Erlang: version 23.1, from September 23, 2020 (https://ports.macports.org/port/erlang/ https://ports.macports.org/port/erlang/). Homebrew Erlang: 24.2, from December 15, 2021 (https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/erlang https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/erlang). Yes, when encountering something like this, I could take the time to update the port definition. Or I could just install the version that already exists in Homebrew and get on with things. Can you understand why I would choose the latter in the absence of a need for multi-user functionality or any other real issues with brew in day-to-day usage?

wbl 5y ago

Macports uses binaries if they exist. If not it uses source.