6 ms·

I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey? And is the assertion that Microsoft took code from AppGet as part of WinGet? The

by mikece 6y ago

I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey? And is the assertion that Microsoft took code from AppGet as part of WinGet? The fact that the word "copied" is in quotes makes me wonder what the beef is... and did anyone ask the APT team if they feel ripped off by the existence of Windows package managers?

ak39 6y ago
>>I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey?<< https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/ https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/
- mikece 6y ago
  "AppGet uses YAML files instead of scripts; we call them manifests. Using data over scripts just seemed like a much better choice." So it's an opinion, one that the WinGet team decided to go with as well. Okay... not sure that's massively compelling just because the author says so but I'm willing to be convinced. I guess I need to go back and dig deeper on this scripting being referenced in Chocolatey: isn't it just powershell scripting?
  - michaelhoffman 6y ago
    Yeah and recently a lot of Chocolatey scripts are calls to a number of standard helpers for various types of installers. Not a whole lot of arbitrary commands being used. Having something like YAML seems cleaner than the Chocolatey approach, but there are almost 8,000 Chocolatey packages and it works pretty well. Implementation > architecture here.
    - godtoldmetodoit 6y ago
      Yeah it's very dubious to me that YAML is the better approach, at least from the perspective of the average enterprise looking for Windows package management tooling. There are still too many nasty installers out there, I'd be very worried about the ability to do what I need without a full scripting language at hand.
      - michaelhoffman 6y ago
        You can have an approach that is YAML with scripting where necessary. There are so many packages that fit into one of the standard Chocolatey package setups (exe, msi, msu, vsix, zip). https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-package https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-packa...
  - munchbunny 6y ago
    In general it's easier to verify the security of the installation (not the code itself) if the package is configured via manifest instead of script. That's because you've preemptively restricted what the installation could possibly do, at the cost of flexibility. There are also some other specifics that are easier to implement via manifest than asking maintainers to implement via script, like supporting private app repository hosting (common enterprise feature). I suspect that's why WinGet went with AppGet's approach instead of Chocolatey.
JamesBarney 6y ago
WinGet is written in c++ and a AppGet is written in c# so the code isn't copied. I think his complaint is they copied the functional interface.
- KayL 6y ago
  his point: Interview + YAML = Copied "We have already talked with a few of the well-known package manager teams...." https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-package-manager-preview/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-package-m... In my point of view, they do the comparisons and created their own product. The interface is too basic.
- thePunisher 6y ago
  That's no crime. If developers wouldn't be allowed to do that we'd have a major crisis on our hands. The worst infringement as far as I'm concerned is that MS tricked him into giving up all his secrets before they implemented it themselves. If Microsoft ever came to talk to me about one of my projects the only thing I'd tell them is: "How much?" (are you willing to pay for it).
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    What secrets? The code is open source. They were probably planning to hire him as well, something just happened in the meantime before he started so it didn't work out. It's a shitty situation for him, but that's just life. Sometimes it sucks.
    - onemoresoop 6y ago
      His future plans that he disclosed at MS. They made the guy think MS would hire him then they didnt even bother to show him the finger.
- loufe 6y ago
  If you read the Github thread it's mentioned that it's not just the interface, but the code structure, and design theory as well.
tsumnia 6y ago
> And is the assertion that Microsoft took code from AppGet as part of WinGet? The fact that the word "copied" is in quotes makes me wonder what the beef is... Agreed; reading the article makes it sound (to me) like they copied his "idea" rather than actual code.
tzs 6y ago
> I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey? Better names? As someone who does not install a lot of things on my Windows systems, if I got a package manager named Chocolatey to install something I'd have trouble remembering the name the next time I want a package manager six months later. I'd remember that I already installed a package manager, but not what it is called. AppGet I'd remember. I might look for it as app-get the second time, but would quickly remember it is spelled a little different than the Debian program. WinGet would be a little harder, but I think I would remember it. Seriously, I'm getting a bit tired of programs whose names have nothing even remotely apparently related to with what the programs do. While on a bit of a rant about names, what the heck is up with the naming of backup programs? There is Duplicacy, Duplicati, and Duplicity. Part of the reason I went with Arq was I kept getting those three confused with each other when reading reviews and comments. Sure, you might not immediately think "backup" when you hear the name "Arq", but at least there is not also an "Ark", "Arque", and "Ourk" backup too.

by mikece 6y ago

ak39 6y ago

>>I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey?<< https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/ https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/

mikece 6y ago
"AppGet uses YAML files instead of scripts; we call them manifests. Using data over scripts just seemed like a much better choice." So it's an opinion, one that the WinGet team decided to go with as well. Okay... not sure that's massively compelling just because the author says so but I'm willing to be convinced. I guess I need to go back and dig deeper on this scripting being referenced in Chocolatey: isn't it just powershell scripting?
- michaelhoffman 6y ago
  Yeah and recently a lot of Chocolatey scripts are calls to a number of standard helpers for various types of installers. Not a whole lot of arbitrary commands being used. Having something like YAML seems cleaner than the Chocolatey approach, but there are almost 8,000 Chocolatey packages and it works pretty well. Implementation > architecture here.
  - godtoldmetodoit 6y ago
    Yeah it's very dubious to me that YAML is the better approach, at least from the perspective of the average enterprise looking for Windows package management tooling. There are still too many nasty installers out there, I'd be very worried about the ability to do what I need without a full scripting language at hand.
    - michaelhoffman 6y ago
      You can have an approach that is YAML with scripting where necessary. There are so many packages that fit into one of the standard Chocolatey package setups (exe, msi, msu, vsix, zip). https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-package https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-packa...
- munchbunny 6y ago
  In general it's easier to verify the security of the installation (not the code itself) if the package is configured via manifest instead of script. That's because you've preemptively restricted what the installation could possibly do, at the cost of flexibility. There are also some other specifics that are easier to implement via manifest than asking maintainers to implement via script, like supporting private app repository hosting (common enterprise feature). I suspect that's why WinGet went with AppGet's approach instead of Chocolatey.

JamesBarney 6y ago

WinGet is written in c++ and a AppGet is written in c# so the code isn't copied. I think his complaint is they copied the functional interface.

KayL 6y ago
his point: Interview + YAML = Copied "We have already talked with a few of the well-known package manager teams...." https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-package-manager-preview/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/windows-package-m... In my point of view, they do the comparisons and created their own product. The interface is too basic.
thePunisher 6y ago
That's no crime. If developers wouldn't be allowed to do that we'd have a major crisis on our hands. The worst infringement as far as I'm concerned is that MS tricked him into giving up all his secrets before they implemented it themselves. If Microsoft ever came to talk to me about one of my projects the only thing I'd tell them is: "How much?" (are you willing to pay for it).
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  What secrets? The code is open source. They were probably planning to hire him as well, something just happened in the meantime before he started so it didn't work out. It's a shitty situation for him, but that's just life. Sometimes it sucks.
  - onemoresoop 6y ago
    His future plans that he disclosed at MS. They made the guy think MS would hire him then they didnt even bother to show him the finger.
loufe 6y ago
If you read the Github thread it's mentioned that it's not just the interface, but the code structure, and design theory as well.

tsumnia 6y ago

> And is the assertion that Microsoft took code from AppGet as part of WinGet? The fact that the word "copied" is in quotes makes me wonder what the beef is... Agreed; reading the article makes it sound (to me) like they copied his "idea" rather than actual code.

tzs 6y ago

> I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey? Better names? As someone who does not install a lot of things on my Windows systems, if I got a package manager named Chocolatey to install something I'd have trouble remembering the name the next time I want a package manager six months later. I'd remember that I already installed a package manager, but not what it is called. AppGet I'd remember. I might look for it as app-get the second time, but would quickly remember it is spelled a little different than the Debian program. WinGet would be a little harder, but I think I would remember it. Seriously, I'm getting a bit tired of programs whose names have nothing even remotely apparently related to with what the programs do. While on a bit of a rant about names, what the heck is up with the naming of backup programs? There is Duplicacy, Duplicati, and Duplicity. Part of the reason I went with Arq was I kept getting those three confused with each other when reading reviews and comments. Sure, you might not immediately think "backup" when you hear the name "Arq", but at least there is not also an "Ark", "Arque", and "Ourk" backup too.