To clarrify the situation with OneGet, there are a bunch of things that were widely misreported, and a good corrective article here: https://blogs.msdn.microsof

To clarrify the situation with OneGet, there are a bunch of things that were widely misreported, and a good corrective article here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/garretts/2015/05/05/10-things-about-oneget-that-are-completely-different-than-you-think/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/garretts/2015/05/05/10-thin... Some of those 10 points relate to Chocolatey: * 1. OneGet isn’t technically a Package-Manager, it’s more of a Package-Manager-Manager. Its actual purpose is to bring together a diverse set of installers, package services, and inventory schemes under a set of unified APIs and PowerShell cmdlets. * 2. OneGet is not another implementation of Chocolatey. when we released the initial prototype of OneGet at //Build 2014, I wrote a proof-of-concept Chocolatey provider to go along with it (mainly as a test of the interface itself, and a ‘template’ of what a package manager needs to do). On top of that, for quite some time it was the only package provider available for OneGet. And then everyone jumped on the “OneGet is a Chocolatey-compatible package manager” story. Sorry about that. * 10. OneGet isn’t called OneGet. We renamed the “OneGet” PowerShell module to “PackageManagement” a while back.