alt Hacker NewsPlease don't use or suggest using homebrew as a Linux installation solution. It's better to simply point at the binaries directly.
Replies
Also don't use Homebrew on MacOS because it screws around in /usr/local and still hasn't worked out how root is supposed to work.
Use Macports, it's tidy, installs into /opt/macports, works with Apple's frameworks and language configuration (for python, java etc), builds from upstream sources + patches, has variants to add/remove features, supports "port select" to have multiple versions installed in parallel.
Just a better solution all around.
Nice, download a random binary off the internet and give it your AWS credentials.
Please people, inspect the source to your tools, or don't use them on production accounts.
What's the problem with Homebrew?
> It's better to simply point at the binaries directly.
Binaries aren't at all signed and can be malicious and do dangerous things.
Especially if it's using curl | bash to install binaries.
As a user of immutable Linux (bazzite), I suggest speaking for yourself and not for others.
On my platform, Homebrew is a preferred method for installing CLI tools. I also personally happen to like it better on Linux than Mac (it seems faster/better).
brew is for users of non-Arch distros who want to experience what using Arch feels like.
Why?
Is it the best out there? No. But it does work, and it provides me with updates for my tools.
Random curl scripts don't auto-update.
Me downloading executables and dropping them in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin or wherever I'm supposed to drop them [0] also isn't secure.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46487921
Also, I find it is usually better to follow up with something like:
'It's better to use Y instead of X BECAUSE of reasons O, P, Q, R & S' vs making a blanket statement like 'Don't use X, use this other insecure solution instead', as that way I get to learn something too.