Please don't use or suggest using homebrew as a Linux installation solution. It's better to simply point at the binaries directly.
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.
So one doesn't really need homebrew that has Linux as third class citizen (with the 2nd class empty)
> 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.
But on average brew is much more safer than downloading a binary from the ether where we don't know what it does.
I see more tools use the curl | bash install pattern as well, which is completely insecure and very vulnerable to machines.
Looks like the best way to install these tools is to build it yourself, i.e. make install, etc.
And you're fully auditing the source code before you run make, right? I don't know anyone who does, but you're handing over just as much control as with curl|bash from the developer's site, or brew install, you're just adding more steps...
I mean you can?
But that is the whole point when the source is available, it is easier to audit, rather than binaries.
Even with brew, the brew maintainers have already audited the code, and it the source to install and even install using --HEAD is hosted on brew's CDN.
Realistically, how much are they auditing? I absolutely agree with your sentiment that it's better than a binary, but I think the whole security model we have is far too trusting because of the historically overwhelming number of good-faith actors in our area both in industry and hobbyists
> as long as I have a basic Linux environment, Homebrew, and Steam
https://xeiaso.net/blog/2025/yotld/ (An year of the Linux Desktop)
I guess some post-macOS users might bring it with them when moving. If it works :shrug:
It's also widely accepted as one of the tools of choice for package persistence on immutable distros (distrobox/toolbox is also another approach):
https://docs.projectbluefin.io/bluefin-dx/
Also, for example I use it for package management for KASM workspaces:
https://gist.github.com/jgbrwn/28645fcf4ac5a4176f715a6f9b170...
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.
Please people, inspect the source to your tools, or don't use them on production accounts.
This is not realistic. Approximately nobody installing AWS cli has reviewed its code.
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).
https://docs.bazzite.gg/Installing_and_Managing_Software/
Linux is just a kernel, not everyone agrees on what is “better” and “cleaner” to use with it!