4 ms·

Scoop is my favorite tool of this type on Windows, but it's not a package manager either[1]: > Simpler than packaging. Scoop isn't a package manager, rather it

by imiric 6y ago

Scoop is my favorite tool of this type on Windows, but it's not a package manager either[1]: > Simpler than packaging. Scoop isn't a package manager, rather it reads plain JSON manifests that describe how to install a program and its dependencies. I haven't tried WinGet, but Chocolatey still seems like the best package manager on Windows. Which is unfortunate, as it's very unfriendly to use, promotes their Pro plans too agressively, and like the article says, slow. [1]: https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Comparison https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Compari...

Jenk 6y ago
Struggling to see the difference with chocolatey.. both do the same thing: download some binaries and install stuff, run arbitrary scripts for whatever they need, track dependencies, versions, etc. In fact it took far too long for chocolatey to even consider _uninstall_ that it was a total mess for years while maintainers played catch-up.
- asperous 6y ago
  The biggest difference is chocolatey is designed around admin installs. Even the command line tool needs to be run with admin rights. The advantage is things are installed the way Windows expects. Scoop, by contrast, keeps everything user level and installs programs to its own folder in Documents aiming to portable. Scoop is a fair amount simpler and doesn’t have any sort of pro version to upsell you on. Scoop’s catalog is smaller but still pretty well managed.
- imiric 6y ago
  The link mentions the differences, though they obviously target similar functionality. One key difference is that there's no such thing as a Scoop "package", unlike with Chocolatey. You can't build a file that can be moved and installed offline, since Scoop downloads and extracts it from a URL. I suppose you could setup a local proxy and workaround it, but it's not the main use case. I use both since Scoop is limited in the installers it supports, preferring Scoop when a program is available there.
  - Jenk 6y ago
    Bucket nonportable may be of interest to you, if you aren't already aware.
    - imiric 6y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't, though it still seems Chocolatey can handle more software because of the UAC support, so I'll keep using both.
      - Jenk 6y ago
        Scoop has a --global flag, too.
PufPufPuf 6y ago
Scoop mostly doesn't run installers, the convention is to extract the files manually, put them in a specific directory, and symlink persistent files to a different directory. Additional installation steps are either automated based on the declarative manifest (shortcuts, CLI shims), or are defined as powershell scripts in the manifest itself. There are some manifests that break it since they absolutely have to (like the VC++ Redist), but for most of the apps, Scoop actually acts a whole lot like a package manager.

by imiric 6y ago

Jenk 6y ago

Struggling to see the difference with chocolatey.. both do the same thing: download some binaries and install stuff, run arbitrary scripts for whatever they need, track dependencies, versions, etc. In fact it took far too long for chocolatey to even consider _uninstall_ that it was a total mess for years while maintainers played catch-up.

asperous 6y ago
The biggest difference is chocolatey is designed around admin installs. Even the command line tool needs to be run with admin rights. The advantage is things are installed the way Windows expects. Scoop, by contrast, keeps everything user level and installs programs to its own folder in Documents aiming to portable. Scoop is a fair amount simpler and doesn’t have any sort of pro version to upsell you on. Scoop’s catalog is smaller but still pretty well managed.
imiric 6y ago
The link mentions the differences, though they obviously target similar functionality. One key difference is that there's no such thing as a Scoop "package", unlike with Chocolatey. You can't build a file that can be moved and installed offline, since Scoop downloads and extracts it from a URL. I suppose you could setup a local proxy and workaround it, but it's not the main use case. I use both since Scoop is limited in the installers it supports, preferring Scoop when a program is available there.
- Jenk 6y ago
  Bucket nonportable may be of interest to you, if you aren't already aware.
  - imiric 6y ago
    Thanks, I wasn't, though it still seems Chocolatey can handle more software because of the UAC support, so I'll keep using both.
    - Jenk 6y ago
      Scoop has a --global flag, too.

PufPufPuf 6y ago

Scoop mostly doesn't run installers, the convention is to extract the files manually, put them in a specific directory, and symlink persistent files to a different directory. Additional installation steps are either automated based on the declarative manifest (shortcuts, CLI shims), or are defined as powershell scripts in the manifest itself. There are some manifests that break it since they absolutely have to (like the VC++ Redist), but for most of the apps, Scoop actually acts a whole lot like a package manager.