3 ms·
Linux dependency managers are just that: they manage dependencies. Most Linux programs expect particular libraries to be installed system-wide. Chocolatey was m
by skrebbel 8y ago
Linux dependency managers are just that: they manage dependencies. Most Linux programs expect particular libraries to be installed system-wide. Chocolatey was modeled after this concept, with packages that need other packages, volunteer package maintainers, a hosted package repository, etc. All this comes with a fair amount of complexity.
Most Windows applications, however, are fully self contained. They ship their dependencies right inside the installer. The key insight behind scoop is that on Windows you don't need a dependency manager. You just use need something that can download and extract installers without all the next, next, ok nonsense and without needing admin rights.
So that's scoop. It downloads an installer from the program's website, extracts the files to a directory under your homedir, and sets up a few PATHs and symlinks.
It has no repository that needs to be hosted and maintained: after all, installers come straight from the source. And the definitions of which program can download which version from where and what should happen next are tiny JSON files managed on scoop's GitHub repo. Want to tell scoop about a new version of your favorite program? Create a PR.
Chocolatey is a great effort that has taught many Windows users that yes, we can have that apt-get goodness too. But I hope that Scoop takes over as the de facto install-software tool. It's so much simpler with very few downsides. Its design is spectacularly good.
- Zekio 8y agoScoop has support for dependencies, and it is really easy to fit into PowerShell scripts :)
- skrebbel 8y agoTrue, but its dependency support is much simpler than that of competing tools. I don't think it has fancy version resolution stuff and I don't it needs it. It's usually dependencies on other programs, eg scoop itself depends on git (to pull install instructions from GitHub). That's different than having a system wide shared libffmpeg.
- toyg 8y agoFrom what you say, it seems to be like Arch Pacman as opposed to Debian Apt (chocolatey): upstream is largely untouched and the package managers is basically just orchestrating. Is that correct?
- skrebbel 8y agoI guess - I have no experience with Pacman. Scoop doesn't even (currently) have the concept of package maintainers. Anyone can make a PR with bumped versions or other fixes (though I understand that as Scoop's popularity increases, some cracks in that model are starting to show).