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?
I think his complaint is they copied the functional interface.
"We have already talked with a few of the well-known package manager teams...." 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.
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).
It's a shitty situation for him, but that's just life. Sometimes it sucks.
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?
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.
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.
https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-packa...
Agreed; reading the article makes it sound (to me) like they copied his "idea" rather than actual code.
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.