4 ms·

I was curious too, turns out it's addressed in the wiki: https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Comparison https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/w

I was curious too, turns out it's addressed in the wiki: https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Comparison https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Compari... Short version: - Installs to ~/scoop/ by default. - No UAC popups, doesn't require admin rights. - Doesn't pollute your path. - Doesn't use NuGet. - Simpler than packaging. - Simpler app repository. - Can't always install a specific version of a program. - Focuses on developer tools.

fxfan 8y ago
Can I install MS office using scoop? Or other proprietary software that usually install globally and need admin permissions? Choco can do that (not that I am affiliated). Also, I like my "path being polluted". The least these programs can do is symlink to a single binary directory so I can run them from anywhere. Simpler repository is just a euphemism for- we have little. As an end user I have no business whether it does it doesn't use nuget. I'm not trying to diss - I respect and appreciate not players in this space but its important to say it like it is. Also, given how "open" choco ecosystem is- I'd love to see non-official tools on top of that.
- amanzi 8y ago
  I gave up on Choco because it got too hard. I could never tell which package I should install, I was never sure if I should be installing from an elevated prompt or not, and then they added a bunch of premium plans to choose between with a confusing feature matrix.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    I really want Chocolately to suceed, but so many packages are outdated, and there are a lot of duplicates, so you often don't know which one you should get. I find the web UI very clunky too.
    - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
      Have you ever tried to uninstall Chocolatey? When I tried doing that for the first time, it was a terror so I never looked back.
  - stuaxo 8y ago
    Most things seem to want an elevated prompt to install, I wish the failure modes were better. It also seems pretty slow, having to download stuff to even tell if it can install a package.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    I have to partially agree... I usually create .cmd scripts for windows that have what is needed, with enough checks to rarely have interference, there are some things that don't come out right sometimes though. The question for me is, can I get all the VS build tools, python 2.7.x and 3.x, git for windows and node.js all installed and where it will work from a command prompt with scoop? Setting up a new developer is the primary use for the scripts I have currently. I have one for windows (chocolatey) and one for mac (homebrew), I wouldn't mind if the one for windows was cleaned up a lot.
- yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
  >The least these programs could do is symlink fo a single binary directory so i can run them from anywhere. Yes, and scoop does exactly that! Everything is added to the path, and if you do like how it’s added to the path, you can easily modify the JSON manifest and submit a PR. The community is thoughtful and considerate but generally against bloat. Scoop also adds shortcuts to the Start Menu. There are some proposals on the table (and have been for a while, without much support) to do more customizations like context menu modifications, but some applications (like VS Code) at least give some instructions for adding that yourself when you run the install.
  - fxfan 8y ago
    Thats a major positive score from me.
gregmac 8y ago
I really like that the manifest files are just single JSON files. Chocolatey packages are pretty complex [1], and even worse is the automatic system [2] used for building the main packages [3], which tries to keep everything updated. There's a very steep learning curve if you want to contribute and fix packages. Contrast to the simple manifests in the scoop main bucket [4] and it's looking much easier. There's some variables there for auto-updating that aren't immediately intuitive, but it doesn't look nearly as complex as chocolatey. Between the extras [5] and other community buckets [6] this is looking pretty compelling -- can't believe I've never heard of it before. [1] https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages [2] https://chocolatey.org/docs/automatic-packages https://chocolatey.org/docs/automatic-packages [3] https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/tree/master/automatic https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/tr... [4] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/tree/master/bucket https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/tree/master/bucket [5] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/tree/master/bucket https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/tree/master/buck... [6] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/buckets.json https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/buckets.jso...
jarcane 8y ago
For me the big reason I switched is the first two. Installing locally to a single path makes for a lot less messy filesystem, and I don’t have to go admin to use it. Also frankly, Chocolatey’s repos have become a mess, full of broken and untrustworthy software, and I just do not trust giving it admin permissions anymore. I don’t know what it is about windows software distributors that seems to lead all of them down this road, but I hope scoop can hold out...
- tracker1 8y ago
  As to windows software requiring admin to install. A lot of it comes down to that for the most part, software that installs globally should be limited to admin users. That doesn't mean that a lot of windows software can't install locally. I do kind of wish that scoop used ~/AppData/Local/scoop instead of ~/scoop (from other comments). Looking into it more, it's interesting. I just didn't get a lot of insight from the home page in the post link. But I do agree with most of the troublesome issues with Chocolatey mentioned in this and other comments.
  - aljones 8y ago
    You can change where it installs by setting an env var.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      sweet... may check it out to see if I can get what I need for my baseline scripts that currently use Chocolatey.

fxfan 8y ago

Can I install MS office using scoop? Or other proprietary software that usually install globally and need admin permissions? Choco can do that (not that I am affiliated). Also, I like my "path being polluted". The least these programs can do is symlink to a single binary directory so I can run them from anywhere. Simpler repository is just a euphemism for- we have little. As an end user I have no business whether it does it doesn't use nuget. I'm not trying to diss - I respect and appreciate not players in this space but its important to say it like it is. Also, given how "open" choco ecosystem is- I'd love to see non-official tools on top of that.

amanzi 8y ago
I gave up on Choco because it got too hard. I could never tell which package I should install, I was never sure if I should be installing from an elevated prompt or not, and then they added a bunch of premium plans to choose between with a confusing feature matrix.
- GordonS 8y ago
  I really want Chocolately to suceed, but so many packages are outdated, and there are a lot of duplicates, so you often don't know which one you should get. I find the web UI very clunky too.
  - yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
    Have you ever tried to uninstall Chocolatey? When I tried doing that for the first time, it was a terror so I never looked back.
- stuaxo 8y ago
  Most things seem to want an elevated prompt to install, I wish the failure modes were better. It also seems pretty slow, having to download stuff to even tell if it can install a package.
- tracker1 8y ago
  I have to partially agree... I usually create .cmd scripts for windows that have what is needed, with enough checks to rarely have interference, there are some things that don't come out right sometimes though. The question for me is, can I get all the VS build tools, python 2.7.x and 3.x, git for windows and node.js all installed and where it will work from a command prompt with scoop? Setting up a new developer is the primary use for the scripts I have currently. I have one for windows (chocolatey) and one for mac (homebrew), I wouldn't mind if the one for windows was cleaned up a lot.
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
>The least these programs could do is symlink fo a single binary directory so i can run them from anywhere. Yes, and scoop does exactly that! Everything is added to the path, and if you do like how it’s added to the path, you can easily modify the JSON manifest and submit a PR. The community is thoughtful and considerate but generally against bloat. Scoop also adds shortcuts to the Start Menu. There are some proposals on the table (and have been for a while, without much support) to do more customizations like context menu modifications, but some applications (like VS Code) at least give some instructions for adding that yourself when you run the install.
- fxfan 8y ago
  Thats a major positive score from me.

gregmac 8y ago

I really like that the manifest files are just single JSON files. Chocolatey packages are pretty complex [1], and even worse is the automatic system [2] used for building the main packages [3], which tries to keep everything updated. There's a very steep learning curve if you want to contribute and fix packages. Contrast to the simple manifests in the scoop main bucket [4] and it's looking much easier. There's some variables there for auto-updating that aren't immediately intuitive, but it doesn't look nearly as complex as chocolatey. Between the extras [5] and other community buckets [6] this is looking pretty compelling -- can't believe I've never heard of it before. [1] https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages https://chocolatey.org/docs/create-packages [2] https://chocolatey.org/docs/automatic-packages https://chocolatey.org/docs/automatic-packages [3] https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/tree/master/automatic https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/tr... [4] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/tree/master/bucket https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/tree/master/bucket [5] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/tree/master/bucket https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop-extras/tree/master/buck... [6] https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/buckets.json https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/blob/master/buckets.jso...

jarcane 8y ago

For me the big reason I switched is the first two. Installing locally to a single path makes for a lot less messy filesystem, and I don’t have to go admin to use it. Also frankly, Chocolatey’s repos have become a mess, full of broken and untrustworthy software, and I just do not trust giving it admin permissions anymore. I don’t know what it is about windows software distributors that seems to lead all of them down this road, but I hope scoop can hold out...

tracker1 8y ago
As to windows software requiring admin to install. A lot of it comes down to that for the most part, software that installs globally should be limited to admin users. That doesn't mean that a lot of windows software can't install locally. I do kind of wish that scoop used ~/AppData/Local/scoop instead of ~/scoop (from other comments). Looking into it more, it's interesting. I just didn't get a lot of insight from the home page in the post link. But I do agree with most of the troublesome issues with Chocolatey mentioned in this and other comments.
- aljones 8y ago
  You can change where it installs by setting an env var.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    sweet... may check it out to see if I can get what I need for my baseline scripts that currently use Chocolatey.