> This is not at all how every package manager works. On debian if you install a package it will just install that package and it will warn you if dependencies will require upgrading first. It won't upgrade totally unrelated packages and break everything for you.
What you're arguing about now is just that Homebrew doesn't give you a prompt. Which is a fair criticism but it doesn't really change much because if you need that other package that depends on the latest version of node, then all the prompting in the world isn't going to change the fact that you are still going to need to install that updated version.
But, as I'd mentioned before, `brew` does let you install specific versions of software too. So it's a bit of a moot point about whether you get upgraded or not since, in this circumstance, you can have your proverbial cake and eat it (ie both versions installed).
> In addition, you have different branches where the debian stable branch is extremely well tested.
Debian isn't bleeding edge and nor is it rolling release. Arch is a better comparison and people frequently complain about updates breaking things on that too (even though that does have a testing branch). To be clear, I love Arch. It is by far and away my favourite Linux and a large part of that is because of it's package management. But no system is perfect.
> Homebrew is way, way worse than any other package manager because it just breaks stuff all the time.
I agree Homebrew has it's warts. I just disagree with this particular complaint. I think Homebrew is doing the right thing here.
If you want to complain about how it has to operate outside of the core OS because it's a 3rd party tool, or its overuse of beer jargon as cute substitutes for the more recognisable package management terminologies then I'm 100% behind you. But to complain that it's keeping your system up-to-date when you haven't asked for a package to be version pinned feels more than a little unfair.