News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by robin_reala on Saturday November 12, 2011 @12:52PM (#3228322)
Dump both macports and fink and use Homebrew instead: http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/
Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by kylewpppd on Saturday November 12, 2011 @02:12PM (#3228587)
I fail to see how anyone can recommend homebrew as a viable solution to package management on OS X. You have to compile everything.

Coming from apt-get or yum makes brew, port, and fink look like a joke.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by wes-exp on Saturday November 12, 2011 @02:40PM (#3228673)
I'm using both Linux and OS X regularly. Apt is awesome, without a doubt, particularly for the breadth of software available. And on the whole, I agree that Homebrew is considerably inferior. But there is one aspect I'm liking better about the Homebrew/Mac approach. With Homebrew I can have the latest software without a problem, because the OS itself is not so hooked in to the web of package manager dependencies. In many cases on Linux I just wait until the next OS release to upgrade software - because toying with the huge dependency graph is not worth it. Maybe I should switch to a rolling release distro? I haven't tried that. But I do like the ability to upgrade software without so many inter-dependencies.
Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by randallsquared on Saturday November 12, 2011 @04:15PM (#3228933)
In many cases on Linux I just wait until the next OS release to upgrade software - because toying with the huge dependency graph is not worth it. Maybe I should switch to a rolling release distro? I haven't tried that.

When I most recently used Linux on the desktop, in 2010, I finally grew frustrated enough with Ubuntu's screen management setup (there was no way to get it to respect my wishes for it to turn off the screen completely, until I finally killed the power manager entirely) that I switched to Arch. That was superficially better (stuff mostly worked as advertised), but the rolling release means either keeping up to date and dealing with constant breakage ("Oh, look, the new kernel has a broken driver for my audio card", or "Oh, another update, another few hours troubleshooting Wine. Yay"), or waiting a while and having the update become riskier and riskier.

Linux will be ready for the desktop when updating doesn't mean near certainty that something breaks. I realize that things used to be more broken, but when I used Linux as my primary desktop back in 1998-2003, my expectations were lower. Being a Mac user for 5-6 years seriously reduced my patience with troubleshooting random problems just to get all the functionality that the system I'm using claims to provide.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by MatthewPhillips on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:34PM (#3229399)
You want to use a distro with an LTS release. Switching to Arch and being surprised that pacman -Syu causes occasional breakage is not a failure of Linux at large.
Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by randallsquared on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:27PM (#3229769)
I was more resigned than surprised. Annoyed, perhaps. Anyway, an LTS release would be guaranteed not to work with newer software, from my experience with them. Apologetics centering on users being prepared for normal updates to break random things do not forward Linux, in my opinion.

It's not clear to me that there's any way to get the level of polish needed for a major desktop OS without at least an army of (very critical) testers and developers, and maybe without forking most of the packages in the distro. Nevertheless, if OS X continues down the apparent path it's on, I'll be switching back again in a few years.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by cookiecaper on Sunday November 13, 2011 @05:11AM (#3230430)
Yes, you should try switching to a rolling release distro. Arch is great. I've been using it for the last five or six years now and have had no desire to switch to a new main distro, though I try out the major ones periodically and install them for certain applications.

Arch is definitely the best workstation for a developer. The convenience of binary packages, the flexibility of PKGBUILDs (analogous to Gentoo's ebuilds, but much more reasonable), vanilla packages and quick releases make it a dream workstation for a developer, despite a rare wonkiness here or there. It works much better than Ubuntu et al for a development box.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by m3koval on Saturday November 12, 2011 @02:50PM (#3228708)
Building from source isn't necessarily a bad thing: some Linux packages have the same behavior (e.g. Portage, on which MacPorts is based). There are pros and cons to both approaches.

Package management is definitely a disaster on OS X, though. Regardless of whether you use Homebrew, Fink, or MacPorts, packages tend to break often. Some of this may be unavoidable: there are enough differences between Linux and OS X that compiling programs developed for Linux for OS X is bound to cause problems.

Re:Tim O'Reilly: I am really starting to hate Mac OS X. by dasil003 on Saturday November 12, 2011 @02:23PM (#3228626)
If you're installing that many large UNIX packages I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there are probably a lot of reasons you'd be better off on Linux.