I'm a Macports user. Here are some things I find attractive about Homebrew:
1. While the range of packages available is only slightly larger, the support story of those packages tends to be MUCH better than Macports: a not-insignificant number of ports haven't been updated since they were first published.
2. Homebrew user docs are much better. The Macports contributor documentation is comprehensive and detailed, but their user docs are obtuse/non-existent. Homebrew contributor documentation is poor, but that lack affects a much smaller set of people than Macports' lack.
3. Homebrew is the supported install method for many pieces of open-source software: even if they also have a port, any support they give / tickets you read will be targetted to the Homebrew installation method.
The 1st and 3rd points may be mainly down to network effect but I feel like the 2nd point is very addressable and will also contribute to 1 & 3 in a big way.
MacPorts is a better long-term experience than Homebrew.
It takes the BSD ports approach, where all packages are maintained together in a centralized repository. The Homebrew approach is closer to a bunch of PPA's and other independently maintained stuff of questionable integration status.
If all you've tried is Homebrew, then I'm not surprised at the reaction.
I moved to Homebrew a few years ago because MacPorts was significantly slower in adding new versions of some of the packages I needed to use for work. I had resisted using Homebrew until that point because the architecture of MacPorts made more sense to me, and because Homebrew's permission model in /usr/local is terrible.
At this point it seems like Homebrew is the standard -- I frequently see open source projects recommending it in their installation instructions without mentioning Macports.
I also recommend Homebrew to friends and coworkers, for the reasons I already mentioned, and also because it is significantly easier to install. Go to their website and the first thing you see is an installation script. Go to the MacPorts website and you see a link to an installation page partway down. That installation page is very long and lists a number of prerequisites needed for the installation to work. Homebrew does the installation bit way better, thus making the barrier to entry far lower.
MacPorts would need to demonstrate significant advantages over Homebrew to get me to switch back.
Having switched and then switched back, I will agree with you. If you're inclined to write your own package installers, Homebrew is worlds better than MacPorts. But otherwise, MacPorts has many more packages that-just-work.
I think MacPorts is a much better tool than Homebrew with way more useful packages. It also installs itself into /opt/local by default so it doesn't conflict with other stuff in /usr/local and for actual OS X or X-Windows apps, it installs them in /Applications. Luckily, they can both live on one system if you're careful, as some people insist on providing only Homebrew copies of their software, which is a bit unfortunate considering that MacPorts is clearly the better system.
Maybe things have changed but I switched from MacPorts to homebrew in the early days of homebrew (2009?) because it was way easier to install.
MacPort's package installer tools mystified me. Homebrew could be improved too, but is better.
Finally, homebrew seems more open to contributions and because they use GitHub, it's very easy to contribute new packages and the high level of activity on Homebrew reflects that. I briefly looked at what it would take to contribute to MacPorts and it was harder.
And I found Homebrew to be a "much better tool than MacPorts with way more useful packages" which to me is "clearly the better system" :) Been using it for the last 5 years and had many chances to compare both. See, it's all opinionated.
I haven't switched to Homebrew but the advantage is that MacPorts creates its own universe of libraries, whereas Homebrew uses what Mac OS X already comes with. This makes installs a lot faster.
I like Macports a lot more. I've never had an issue with any of the packages really besides a few esoteric ones that failed to build or hadn't been updated in a while (and they are usually easy to by updating the portfile). I prefer the segregated environment of macports too, you won't overwrite any system stuff. I got the impression that homebrew wasn't a terribly well thought out tool and was a bit lazy. There's a lot of 'github' culture there which I'm wary of (and by github culture I mean half finished stuff and fancy looking projects lacking rigor). Case in point, it annoys me that their slogan is 'the missing package manager for OSX'. Macports had been around long before they were. I only sometimes wish that Macports had better binary package support.
My experience with Homebrew has been a world of improvement over MacPorts. Every time I'd try to update things with MacPorts I might as well have started filing an issue ahead of time. Homebrew rarely requires additional intervention.
Homebrew has been around for a long time. I've never seen a better alternative for macOS, do you think you could mention any of them?
Regarding MacPorts:
> MacPorts distributes source code that is compiled on install, so Macports is generally much slower to install packages. Macports installs packages under “/opt/local”. Macports uses root, which can lead to users goofing up their system or workplace policy issues
Hi, I wrote this article. I also switched from Homebrew with pretty much the same opinion as you: a lot of projects have seemed to switched to "Homebrew-only" as it's more popular (and better advertised) than MacPorts is, which I think is a shame. Regarding ease of use, though, it's not actually that bad: while the website is a bit dated, you can basically just click the "Download" button and then the link for your operating system and run the installer. And as for reasons why MacPorts is better: that's basically what my article was about ;)
Agreed, I don't understand why so many people use homebrew instead of macports. Macports seems to be immune to so many issues that complicate homebrew, and I love that it keeps everything in its own dir, '/opt'. Easy to see what it installed, and easy to uninstall (rm -r /opt). The commands are also easier for me to remember -- no awkward, overstretched analogy.
I often help people start hacking on open source projects and I can't tell you how many times they've made a mess with homebrew, nothing works. Replace homebrew with macports and their problems are solved, rarely to return.
Maybe in some cases homebrew installs something a bit faster, but it's rarely a meaningful amount of time and it doesn't make up for all the time spent fixing homebrew when it messes up.
Cool response. In your opinion, what advantage does Macports offer over homebrew? I'll admit When I read tutorials on new frameworks, tools, etc, they almost always assume everyone uses homebrew. So (perhaps lazily) I just did the same.
MacPorts is a better alternative to Homebrew. More packages, better design, and created by an ex-Apple engineer who was also behind FreeBSD’s ports system.
1. While the range of packages available is only slightly larger, the support story of those packages tends to be MUCH better than Macports: a not-insignificant number of ports haven't been updated since they were first published.
2. Homebrew user docs are much better. The Macports contributor documentation is comprehensive and detailed, but their user docs are obtuse/non-existent. Homebrew contributor documentation is poor, but that lack affects a much smaller set of people than Macports' lack.
3. Homebrew is the supported install method for many pieces of open-source software: even if they also have a port, any support they give / tickets you read will be targetted to the Homebrew installation method.
The 1st and 3rd points may be mainly down to network effect but I feel like the 2nd point is very addressable and will also contribute to 1 & 3 in a big way.
reply