Homebrew Cask is unstable; they are not reluctant to make breaking changes to the code base. They also don’t care about potentially distributing malware and adware and they do not quarantine the downloaded/installed applications so that they benefit from Gatekeeper.
Because its command line. No casual user wants that hassle. GRAPHICAL user interface is why we even use computers so easily. I'm a full time developer and I still prefer ALL GUI apps over command line alternatives. It's just easier for humans to understand.
Please state your prefered order and reason
"Cask", however, appears to be a solution looking for a problem. For native MacOS apps, AppStore or .dmg/.pkg downloads do the job and are ubiquitous - you can grab the latest version direct from the author/publisher's website, so why add a dependency on third-party "Casks"?
Because you can just type: brew cask install <all my apps> and you are done. No hunting for apps and going through several installers.
Because you can just type: brew cask install <all my apps> and you are done. No hunting for apps and going through several installers.
This is just the Adobe Creative Cloud installer app, so you'd still need to sign into that app and let it download your Adobe CC apps. In that instance there's not much incentive to use Cask to install the CC installer.(there are things like Adobe CC in the list at https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask/tree/master/Casks - how does that work?)
Why in the *world* would you chance some third-party re-packaging of someone's software vs going to the actual publisher? I'd also ask why those publishers aren't landing on people re-distributing their software via "cask" with both feet... unless it's GPL/BSD licensed, it's likely whoever's doing it doesn't have a right to distribute in the first place.
Sure... after faffing about to find out precisely what names cask uses for the apps (especially time consuming if it turns out the app isn't there), further faffing to find out if there are any installation options to set, then going to the publishers' website anyway to check if cask has the latest version...
[...]
It's not as if downloading a .dmg and clicking a .pkg or dragging an icon to Applications is one of the labours of Hercules. As I said, when the alternative is building something from a tarball, Homebrew etc. have a use.
probably along with a bit of due diligence to make sure you're not getting pirated software (there are things like Adobe CC in the list at https://github.com/caskroom/homebrew-cask/tree/master/Casks - how does that work?)
There is no ‘repackaging’ or redistributing, all is does it download the vendor’s DMG/PKG from the source and place the app bundle therein into /Applications or install the PKG using Apple’s command-line tools. That is all this does. Think of it as automation of what you are normally doing by hand.
All I can say is "wow". Homebrew is really trying anything they can to keep themselves relevant. Talk about a Rube Goldberg way to do something.
It is not like Apple has given the App Store any love in recent years. App discovery is still abysmal and navigation is clunky. Many developers have chosen not to use it at all. What remains are dubious websites such as Softtonic and MacUpdate that are now pushing adware to stay alive. Caskroom is a nice alternative IMO.
If I know the application exists, then why do I need this random third-party tool that I have to install? Why wouldn't I just go to the Application web site?
All I can say is "wow". Homebrew is really trying anything they can to keep themselves relevant.
I don’t understand the cynical attitude. They are doing this for themselves and they have attracted quite an active community of people who maintain it.
What remains are dubious websites such as Softtonic and MacUpdate that are now pushing adware to stay alive.
Mac App Store or DMG which one your first choice ?
Graphical user interfaces are more intuitive and easier to use which is why they become so popular.
There are niche situations where a command-line tool is preferable for a handful of people, but for the average computer user, a graphical tool is simpler to use. That point seems to be lost on the OP.
Would your mom like to turn on your microwave oven with a command-line interface or would she rather press the "Plus 1 Min" or "Popcorn" button? Yeah, I thought so.
I always thought that this is rather obvious and easy to understand, yet it turns out that this is a problem for some people and they instead open the application directly from the disk image and always attach the image, unaware of what they should do with it.
Well, most .dmgs like that open up a custom window with an alias to Applications and a large, friendly message saying "Drag this to here...". Or, you can ship a .pkg called "Install AppUWant".
Does anybody seriously think that any user who can't cope with that is going to find it easier to locate and run Terminal* and type:
brew cask search "App U Want"
brew cask install Cask-Name-For-App-U-Want
...with correct spacing and punctuation?.
...and they're certainly not going to be able to cope if something goes wrong and "it says error".
Anybody with such a low level of expertise is exactly the sort of person who would be well advised to have their Mac set to "only allow Apps from App Store".
(* remember, if one of the first things you do when you unwrap a new Mac is dive into Applications/Utilities and drag Terminal to the Dock, and maybe install GoToShell or something to boot, then you are not a typical user).