What you're really saying is "I disagree with you, but I'm going to take a rhetorical roundabout in which I attempt to disqualify your argument by calling it 'not helpful'"

> All your criticism can be summed up by "it doesn't look like a Mac, therefore it's the wrong approach".

No, my criticism can be summed up like so: If you create unnecessary, reducible complexity, then add even more complexity on top of that to manage it, you're doing it wrong.

> It's no coincidence each and every developer in my office who use a Mac also has either ports or brew installed.

You're right. It's not.

First of all, note what you said: every developer.

Second of all, note what they're installing: UNIX software. UNIX software is a distribution mess, and it requires a UNIX package manager. If you don't create the mess in the first place, you don't need a package manager to manage it.

Let third-party packaging systems deal with the UNIX packaging mess, and let engineers who need that software deal with the package managers needed to manage it.

Net result: Your users (which includes engineers when they don't have their software development hat on) don't have to deal with the package management disaster unless they need to deal with UNIX software.

QED.