4 ms·
In corporate environments it is, since you don’t have to get permission from the IT police to install VSCode or Firefox or grep. (Of course, you should. But so
by easton 6y ago
In corporate environments it is, since you don’t have to get permission from the IT police to install VSCode or Firefox or grep.
(Of course, you should. But sometimes it’s not an option.)
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThey can prevent that if they want to (there are tons of admin software to prevent users from install unapproved software on windows) so it really is a nonissue. The main issue is extra space, but that also isn't that big of an issue if the app is written well for updates and I don't know why that would be any more or less efficient when installed by "user" vs "admin"
- 411111111111111 6y ago> prevent users from install unapproved software While they could prevent it, that's not how. The software is never "installed". It's only unzipped to scoops install directory (usually home/scoop/...) Then it adds the install directory to the PATH and it's done. The copied executables have never been marked as unknown by windows in my experience. Admins could of course lock down systems to only allow executables with specific hashedls which are manually whitelisted by the admins, but just disallowing installs won't help at all Disallowing powershell or scripting altogether makes it impossible to use as well.
- majkinetor 6y ago> Disallowing powershell or scripting altogether makes it impossible to use as well. You can't really do that, as pwsh can be embedded easily.