4 ms·

KevinSawacki who owns the atom repo on Github is one of the maintainers, and chocolatey has been around for a while now. The reason they suggest chocolatey is b

KevinSawacki who owns the atom repo on Github is one of the maintainers, and chocolatey has been around for a while now. The reason they suggest chocolatey is because there's no auto updater for Windows atom yet, instead they recommend you use the update function from chocolatey. With my builds, I had to announce them and poke some people who use my builds actively because of this issue, so that they would download the new version.

eps 12y ago
> KevinSawacki Nice to know, but it doesn't move a needle a bit. I have no desire to establish trusting relationship with Kevin, but I am willing to trust GitHub. Adding a simple update checker is as trivial as pulling a URL and seeing if the response contains a version number that is greater than your own. How is this too hard to add and how it justifies adding some random dependency that needs full admin rights to run?
- SuddsMcDuff 12y ago
  As cwoac mentioned, Chocolatey is quite well etablished on Windows and has been for some time, it's not "some random dependency".
  - eps 12y ago
    Pray tell how does being "quite well etablished" translate into being competent sysadmins and ensuring that they don't get compromised and won't end up pushing a whole load of crap on my box on the next update?
    - chton 12y ago
      That is an argument against literally every updater or automatic check for updates. It applies equally to Chocolatey and to any auto-updater they could have used for Atom. Please go back and find a better reason.
      - eps 12y ago
        I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself. There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
      - eps 12y ago
        I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself. There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.

eps 12y ago

> KevinSawacki Nice to know, but it doesn't move a needle a bit. I have no desire to establish trusting relationship with Kevin, but I am willing to trust GitHub. Adding a simple update checker is as trivial as pulling a URL and seeing if the response contains a version number that is greater than your own. How is this too hard to add and how it justifies adding some random dependency that needs full admin rights to run?

SuddsMcDuff 12y ago
As cwoac mentioned, Chocolatey is quite well etablished on Windows and has been for some time, it's not "some random dependency".
- eps 12y ago
  Pray tell how does being "quite well etablished" translate into being competent sysadmins and ensuring that they don't get compromised and won't end up pushing a whole load of crap on my box on the next update?
  - chton 12y ago
    That is an argument against literally every updater or automatic check for updates. It applies equally to Chocolatey and to any auto-updater they could have used for Atom. Please go back and find a better reason.
    - eps 12y ago
      I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself. There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.
    - eps 12y ago
      I am not making up reasons, so you can keep "go and find a better one" to yourself. There are no bulk auto-updaters on Windows except for Windows Update, which is professionally provisioned. If Chocolatey wants to act as one, it needs to measure up.