Why do you have to use brew - there are other package managers for macOS new ones like nixpkgs and ones much older than brew like Macports and Fink. All of these follow normal Unix standards e.g. like work on a multi user system.
Because Homebrew is unfortunately "the standard" and the first place a project will package for if availability for macOS is desired. As a Linux user, it's the worst package manager I've ever experienced but it is what everyone is using in my company who uses macOS (most people).
"pull requests for new packages are welcome" is the self-defeating answer: if you as a user have to create a PR for a package to be in MacPorts then it means that MacPorts have not attracted enough attention from the authors of the package to submit it themselves.
In the Nix world, at least, packages are often added by people who want to use them. I think that's more common than the fulfillment of a packaging request.
It would be funny if the state of packaging on Linux would not be so pathetic.
If authors care about Windows they do produce Windows installers and/or publish it in their store.
If authors care about macOS, they produce .dmg or publish the app via Mac Store. Additionally they often publish it on Homebrew.
If authors care about Linux, they provide packages for Ubuntu and Fedora, and sometimes for more distros from the long tail (usually Debian comes 3rd as it is simple to add after Ubuntu).
It's so slow: on the order of single digit minutes to a dozen to install a single package. It feels messy, like it's shotgunning my entire system with bits of itself (I don't know how true the reality of this is). I've not infrequently had packages simply fail to finally resolve after they did their dance of resolution. It does not inspire delight. The vibe, if you'll excuse me, is very crude cudgel.
Oh, the install location it asks you about when installing Linuxbrew is extremely odd. One choice offered is to make a dedicated brew user directory and then install there? That's terrible practice. No one else does this because it's terrible. And then the other apparently breaks a bunch of stuff and is not recommended.
You don't absolutely have to use brew, but there's a sort of relentless soft pressure to use it because it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages.
I rather dislike it, and I periodically purge it from my system. So far I've always ended up reluctantly adding it back because I was trying out some tool or other that was dramatically more of a pain to install without brew.
I can get by for a long time without it, but then I want to try out something that assumes brew, or whose dependencies assume brew, and it winds up back on my system again until I get vexed enough to remove it again.
> it's more or less the de facto standard package manager for macOS and has such a large collection of packages
I definitely see the social pressure. That said, I’ve never needed to use it because I needed a package that was not on Macports. So far for my use no difference in the number of packages in the default repositories has been meaningful.
The thing that always makes me cave and install brew is I want to try some tool and its default install assumes brew.
Now, I'll bet in close to 100% of cases I could get things to work with stuff from MacPorts instead, but I've accumulated thirty years worth of scars that incline me to want to stick as closely as possible to the defaults when trying something new.
So I end up going back to brew, even though I don't much like it.
