Thread: Chocolatey

Is the Windows user ready for apt-get? - Scott Hanselman
I saw this page, and I was wondering if anyone had tried it?

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Is the Windows user ready for apt-get? - Scott Hanselman
I saw this page, and I was wondering if anyone had tried it?

I don't see how this is any different than using a package repository with msiexec. Windows has always had some sort of apt-get/yum feature, it's just that most don't use it.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

How long is "always" ?


Æ

Since the beginning.

Autoexec was used back when ftp and dos were preferred, msiexec has been used since the 2000 days.

Both of these options provided a repository stored with ftp sites or any other file hosts. I can remember installing my first vid card driver using autoexec and the voodoo ftp site. If i remember correctly, NT 3.5 was the first server set that could publish local domain repositories that supported both autoexec/batch and msiexec, and I had some packages available from the outside.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

I won't quibble with "beginning" (though I recall Windows systems existing before 1999), and having admin'd NT 3.51 systems in what I call way way way way back in the day I can claim some familiarity with network installs, but I think your assertion plays a little lose with the true value of apt and the ecosystem in which it lives.

The Debian system has made installing new software, resolving dependencies, and keeping your software up-to-date, a trivial task since 1998. It is a comprehensive solution.

Part of the difference comes down to the licensing differences between the Windows world and the FLOSS world, and I suppose there are many interesting discussions to be had about those differences (most of which have already taken place), but those differences are real. My list of sources and repositories defines the entire software world available to my system. I can change the boundaries of that world at will. I am automatically notified when there are updates available for any software I have installed from that world, and those updates are applied at whichever level of interaction I prefer.

I don't know if Chocolately can completely replicate that experience (I kinda doubt it), but I know for sure that msiexec can't.

Cheers,


AetheLove

I think that the main difference here is that software publications on nix have been typically open to the world and apt keeps those central to the distribution. The issue with msiexec is that there isn't really a publication of software on the global scale, but if someone or some team wanted to, they could create software distribution lists that could be published through msiexec and installed/updated in the same fashion. I would like to see a deployment option for the apt and yum options but i've yet to see progress on the large scale distributions. Hopefully someday they will get some of those lists into a more classified system that keeps consistency.

I mentioned the autoexec and the batch features due to windows existing before 1999. They were used exclusively on nt 3.5 and early versions of dos. It's a very primitive application considering the functions of apt today, but it's comparable none the less. No need to bring sarcasm into the discussion.

anyways..... Downloaded the software and it works well. Had some issues loading the 64 bit snap in but other than that it works as intended.