WinGet is written in c++ and a AppGet is written in c# so the code isn't copied.

I think his complaint is they copied the functional interface.

his point: Interview + YAML = Copied

"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.

That's no crime. If developers wouldn't be allowed to do that we'd have a major crisis on our hands.

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).

What secrets? The code is open source. They were probably planning to hire him as well, something just happened in the meantime before he started so it didn't work out.

It's a shitty situation for him, but that's just life. Sometimes it sucks.

His future plans that he disclosed at MS. They made the guy think MS would hire him then they didnt even bother to show him the finger.

If Google v Oracle is ultimately determined in favor of Oracle, copying the functional interface could wind up costing them a ton of money.

If you read the Github thread it's mentioned that it's not just the interface, but the code structure, and design theory as well.

>>I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey?<<

https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/

"AppGet uses YAML files instead of scripts; we call them manifests. Using data over scripts just seemed like a much better choice."

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?

In general it's easier to verify the security of the installation (not the code itself) if the package is configured via manifest instead of script. That's because you've preemptively restricted what the installation could possibly do, at the cost of flexibility. There are also some other specifics that are easier to implement via manifest than asking maintainers to implement via script, like supporting private app repository hosting (common enterprise feature). I suspect that's why WinGet went with AppGet's approach instead of Chocolatey.

Yeah and recently a lot of Chocolatey scripts are calls to a number of standard helpers for various types of installers. Not a whole lot of arbitrary commands being used.

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.

Yeah it's very dubious to me that YAML is the better approach, at least from the perspective of the average enterprise looking for Windows package management tooling.

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.

You can have an approach that is YAML with scripting where necessary. There are so many packages that fit into one of the standard Chocolatey package setups (exe, msi, msu, vsix, zip).

https://chocolatey.org/docs/helpers-install-chocolatey-packa...

> 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...

Agreed; reading the article makes it sound (to me) like they copied his "idea" rather than actual code.

> I am curious: why would I want to use AppGet or WinGet instead of Chocolatey?

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.