I’m especially concerned about it being somehow broken, unwieldy, insecure or privacy-invasive.

Case in point; at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser. Out of the available options I gravitate towards Brave as it seems like the least bad out of the bunch.

Unfortunately, their RPM-package leaves a lot to be desired and has multiple times just been awful to deal with. So much so that I have been using another Chromium-based browser instead that’s available directly from my distro’s repos. But…, I would still switch to Brave in an instant if Brave was found in my distro’s repos. A quick search on repology.org reveals that an up-to-date Brave is packaged in the AUR (unsurprisingly), Manjaro and Homebrew. I don’t feel like changing distros for the sake of a single program, but adding Homebrew to my arsenal of universal package managers doesn’t sound that bad. But, not all universal package managers are created equal, therefore I was interested to know how Homebrew fares compared to the others and if it handles the packaging of the browser without blemishing the capabilities of the browser’s sandbox.


P.S. I expect people to recommend me Distrobox instead. Don’t worry, I have been a staunch user of Distrobox for quite a while now. I have also run Brave through an Arch-distrobox in the past. But due to some concerns I’ve had, I chose to discontinue this. Btw, its Flatpak package ain’t bad either. But unfortunately it’s not official, so I choose to not make use of it for that reason.

  • tvcvt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    My only experience with homebrew is on macOS and I’ve switched to MacPorts there. Homebrew did some weird permissions things I didn’t care for (chowned all of /usr/local to $USER, if I’m remembering right). It worked fine on a single user system, but seemed like a bad philosophy to me. This was years ago and I don’t know how it behaves on Linux.

    I also prefer Firefox, but when I need a Chromium alternative for testing, I opt for the flatpak (or the snap) version personally.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Based on what I saw on macOS I wouldn’t touch Homebrew with a 10 feet pole. We have proper packaging systems in the Linux world. The Chromium snap is supported by Canonical so that’s a great candidate for anything that comes with snap or can use snap. If I couldn’t use snap, I’d use the Chromium flatpak from Flathub.

      • altOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Based on what I saw on macOS I wouldn’t touch Homebrew with a 10 feet pole. We have proper packaging systems in the Linux world.

        Could you please elaborate on how the packaging in the Linux world is better? I can imagine why, but I’d rather have a better-informed idea on the matter. Thanks for your input!

        The Chromium snap is supported by Canonical so that’s a great candidate for anything that comes with snap or can use snap. If I couldn’t use snap, I’d use the Chromium flatpak from Flathub.

        I use Chromium from my repo already, but as stated in the OP; I would switch in an instance to Brave if I could.

    • altOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Homebrew did some weird permissions things

      I should look into this. Thank you!