Package stats from Repology seems to contradict this claim:
https://repology.org/repositories/graphs
It's not bad, but it's not the best either. Not even close.
> including tons of closed-source stuff
Homebrew doesn't ship any proprietary formulae at all. They have a clear policy against it:
> We don’t like binary formulae
> Our policy is that formulae in the core tap (homebrew/core) must be open-source with an Debian Free Software Guidelines license and either built from source or produce cross-platform binaries (e.g. Java, Mono). Binary-only formulae should go to homebrew/cask.
> Additionally, homebrew/core formulae must also not depend on casks or any other proprietary software.
> This includes automatic installation of casks at runtime.
https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Acceptable...
And yet, I can install Sublime Text, Slack, and others through it out of the box. I just checked a couple more, Figma's there. Microsoft Office. Steam.
You used to have to run a one-liner to enable casks (just one, not one for every damn vendor like with apt) but not anymore.
However, my aversion to homebrew goes beyond taste: my experience with homebrew is rife with breakages. To be fair we were trying to use it in a CI system, which will very quickly reveal a buggy system. By contrast, apt/dnf are rock solid when used in CI.
An actual example: we tried providing our own recipe to install a particular version of libicu. This triggered an upgrade of some dependency; that triggered an upgrade of libicu to a different version than 68. The command exited with a successful status. A real package manager would have detected the package conflict and reported it, giving you resolution options, or errored out in a non-interactive terminal.
Why were we trying to pin versions in the first place? You guessed it, package breakages.