I installed Chocolatey maybe a year ago, because of Atom for Windows. My recollection is that it was rather slow, shortcuts would sometimes break, and it was often unable to uninstall packages. Maybe package management is just hopeless for Windows.
You have to understand the basic differences between Windows and Linux. The way Libraries are installed in Windows is different from Linux. For one there is a registry in Windows and Linux stores things in directories and text files:
http://superuser.com/questions/295635/linux-equivalent-of-wi...
Windows is closed source and changes how things work without informing others because some APIs are hidden. Linux is open source and they share all API calls and etc.
So there might not be an apt-get for Windows because of the way it is designed is different from that of Linux.
It's definitely not equivalent to "apt-get" -- I tried it out recently and it's a scripted installer for many things, but lacks a functional package manager backend like apt-get requires (dpkg, rpm for apt-rpm, etc).
Further, it doesn't have a repository of the packages themselves -- it tries to pull them from upstream, which sometimes means it will try to fetch a version that has been removed, moved, or is otherwise unavailable for reasons outside of the script's control and the people manually updating the database have not updated this packages URL. That is, without action this database will "rot" very quickly.
Because it lacks a functional package manager which understands that packages are just a collection of files on disk and plonks them down and instead tries to automate the install of every changing upstream package, which requires lots of testing. They seem to have automated test suites based on their webpage's green/red "dots" indicating a package passed/failed, however even installing software that was "passing" didn't always work for me.
Additionally, installing packages then tries to configure them based on command-line arguments... which are not the same for every package and are poorly documented for most packages...
A package manager can be made to work on Microsoft Windows, but this isn't "it" -- it might be an improvement. I haven't used Microsoft Windows in years and recently wanted to test out OpenSSH on Microsoft Windows (also terrible quality) so I tried Chocolatey and was quite disappointed.
The largest hurdle, I suspect, and the one that causes all of the design decisions in Chocolatey to be made the way they are is the prevalence of software with onerous distribution licensing such that they are not legally able to make a central repository under their control, and are not able to disassemble the installer packages and make sane packages with pre/post install scripts that operate consistently... But for something like OpenSSH it could have been made to work.
Something that has more of a "true" package manager feel for windows is scoop: https://scoop.sh
It's not quite a full package manager either - but it works well enough, should be easy to add package/manifests for, and does allow one to update installed packages:
Actually it depends on the package type. Chocolatey doesn't require an admin shell nor does it require PowerShell for packages that have the runtime executables embedded in the package. Those are known as portable packages.
The problem with a blanket statement for admin shell is that for almost everything you want to do with Windows, it requires administrative permissions to actually install things. So it's more that Windows requires admin permissions to run native installers like MSIs, InstallShield, InnoSetup, etc.
PowerShell is also been moved down to just an automated script install provider in choco. It will become optional once ScriptCS and others are supported as alternative automated script providers.
You are correct about the distribution licensing, however that really only applies to the packages on the community feed. When Chocolatey is used internally, I think you will see it is more about files on disk versus dealing with things changing and the non-deterministic nature of the internet.
Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows. IMO the writing is on the wall as MS ships OneGet with Windows 10; while I think I read something about the projects working together, or OneGet supporting Chocolatey repositories or something, I don't believe OneGet's 'native format' will be Chocolatey packages.
On top of this, Chocolatey is based on v2 of NuGet, which is a) terrible and b) superseded by v3, which is the go-forward version that has a different package format and capabilities.
I am not sure why anyone would seriously consider using Chocolatey for a new project today.
* 1. OneGet isn’t technically a Package-Manager, it’s more of a Package-Manager-Manager. Its actual purpose is to bring together a diverse set of installers, package services, and inventory schemes under a set of unified APIs and PowerShell cmdlets.
* 2. OneGet is not another implementation of Chocolatey. when we released the initial prototype of OneGet at //Build 2014, I wrote a proof-of-concept Chocolatey provider to go along with it (mainly as a test of the interface itself, and a ‘template’ of what a package manager needs to do). On top of that, for quite some time it was the only package provider available for OneGet. And then everyone jumped on the “OneGet is a Chocolatey-compatible package manager” story. Sorry about that.
* 10. OneGet isn’t called OneGet. We renamed the “OneGet” PowerShell module to “PackageManagement” a while back.
I'm not involved in OneGet, I was quoting the article when I said "we renamed...". The article dedicates some paragraphs to the reason for the renaming. tl;dr legal cost-cutting.
"Chocolatey is based on v2 NuGet which is a) terrible and"
I laughed at that point because I completely agree that NuGet v2 isn't great at all. Also you forgot to mention that NuGet v3 is brand new and there isn't yet published documentation on how to get from one format to the next - https://github.com/NuGet/Home/issues/1870. Not sure how fast you expect Chocolatey to adopt NuGet v3, but it's a bit much to throw this argument in here as a reason NOT to use Chocolatey.
I don't think you can get from one format to the next, and I don't expect them to adopt it at all. Unless something has changed recently V3 doesn't support the content/ or tools/ folders in the package, nor does it support pre- or post- install scripts. There are whole classes of V2 package which can't be created in V3. I expect some of this to change, but since MS went ahead and shipped V3 with Visual Studio 2015 and started publishing packages in that format, they have to be a lot more deliberate about changing behavior.
I guess my point re: Chocolatey is that they depended on a bad upstream tool that has moved in a different direction from what Chocolatey probably needs. So Chocolatey is either stuck on an old codebase - MS says they are going to maintain v2, but who thinks that is going to last? - or they are forking and maintaining themselves, which also seems unlikely as they risk giving up compatibility with all the NuGet repo software they also kind of depend on.
It's likely building on top of NuGet was a mistake on my part, but it's all there was at the time and it was pretty easy to get started. We don't need the tools folder and we don't like the content folder.
Since Chocolatey does everything once the NuGet package is in place related to automation scripts, it doesn't really matter that v3 doesn't support the pre or post scripts. I started working with the NuGet team a couple of summers ago about making the format more flexible, this was just as v3 work was starting to get ramped up.
At some point Chocolatey will likely not have any dependencies on NuGet itself, but will be compatible with NuGet packaging formats. To move more towards a machine package manager there are more things you need in the specification (like what versions of Windows does a package support as metadata, dependencies per OS, optional dependencies, virtuals, etc). Things that NuGet proper may never need.
My point being, Chocolatey has done a lot of growing up over the last year with a complete rewrite in C#, and will continue to grow up into a full fledged package manager over the next couple of years. There are some fundamental things we are still working out, but there are some amazing things in the pipeline coming for Chocolatey.
I looked at chocolatey a few years back and decided I didn't like installing anonymously packaged software on my machine.
Recently my team started using it for cloud formation app deployment and I see it has reviewed and approved packages now.
I was also under the misaprehension that chocolatey packages contained binaries but they typically download from the software makers site at install time - so no binary interference to inject nasties by package authors.
Have to say I'm impressed with the updates to security and will look into using it privately as a result.
I can't use Chocolately to install zlib or libpng or SDL or libcurl or GMP or really any of the packages that I would never have to think about installing on Linux, because they were pulled as dependencies long ago. The method for obtaining these on Windows is, as best as I have ever been able to tell, to navigate to each of their webpages and look for Windows releases, which you then download and install yourself, a task I find so daunting that I essentially never write or build programs that have any dependencies whatsoever on my Windows box. This situation is obviously ridiculous so I have to conclude I am doing something very, very wrong.
So, Windows programmers, how do get by without a package manager?
In this example, you probably don't use zlib or libpng or SDL or libcurl or GMP. Your application targets a version of the .NET framework and you use System.IO.Compression, System.Windows.Media.Imaging, DirectX, and whatever the .NET equivalents are for your curl use case and GMP. You might use NuGet to find alternative packages to add to your solution - you are authoring in Visual Studio - for some or all of this. DirectX looks tricky.
Or, if you insist on writing 'unmanaged code,' you are probably finding similar capabilities in native libraries distributed with Windows; it's DirectX's natural environment. Otherwise, you're responsible for doing as you suggest: downloading/compiling the various libraries and stashing them in a nominated area for use by your build toolchain.
Also there's always msys2/mingw64, which does have a package manager (pacman I think?) and you woudl then distribute the necessary runtimes with your program.
Chocolatey packages are supposed to point to silent, no-nagware, no BS installers (specifying the correct command-line args for silent, lightweight installs if needed). Instead of hunting for the right "Download" button, just find the package on Chocolatey.org, maybe check the release history and comments if you're concerned, and off you go.
* Dependencies *
Since Chocolatey is based on NuGet, dependencies are a first class concept. That means that a tool that requires a specific version of imagemagick (random example) would depend on that version, Chocolatey would ensure that the deps are installed first. That has other impacts, such as making it easy to provide a customized version of an existing application (e.g. https://chocolatey.org/packages/EthanBrown.ConEmuConfig) or allowing you to build a meta-package that rolls up several other packages (e.g. "web dev loadout" or whatever).
If you're looking at Chocolatey, I highly recommend Boxstarter, which takes it to the next level with support for all kinds of things you'd want when automating machine builds on Windows: http://boxstarter.org/
It looks like all of my comments on your post were private notes. Edit: I readded the ones I could make public.
You wrote that the Chocolatey Gallery had no formal review process, and in the same month (October 2014), a formal review process was introduced. The community feed on the Chocolatey Gallery has had moderation of packages since October 2014. I shared that information with you at the time we changed the security model in 2014, so I'm slightly disappointed that you failed to acknowledge that aspect has been fixed.
nuget is the closest to apt-get you can get on Windows. Chocolatey is only a download script for a bunch of GUI apps―very useful in its own right, but not a package manager with dependency resolutíon etc.
Only a download script for GUI apps? That's interesting and very likely misinformed. Since Chocolatey builds on top of NuGet.Core, it's got all of the same benefits to dependency resolution you get with NuGet. Plus it builds on top of that with quite a few things. You can call it a fancy download script if you want, but I think you are missing all of the things it does since it was rewritten last year - in addition to a download script, here are things it does currently - https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/GettingStarted#how-...
Must say that Chocolatey have made my life much easier and I recommend to try it out.
Not sure about all the negative comments here. It's OSS so if you have a negative experience and the time to write comments here, why not contribute back and post the same thing as an issue to get a discussion started with the team? It's actively being developed and the team behind it listens to the community.
38 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadWindows is closed source and changes how things work without informing others because some APIs are hidden. Linux is open source and they share all API calls and etc.
So there might not be an apt-get for Windows because of the way it is designed is different from that of Linux.
Further, it doesn't have a repository of the packages themselves -- it tries to pull them from upstream, which sometimes means it will try to fetch a version that has been removed, moved, or is otherwise unavailable for reasons outside of the script's control and the people manually updating the database have not updated this packages URL. That is, without action this database will "rot" very quickly.
Because it lacks a functional package manager which understands that packages are just a collection of files on disk and plonks them down and instead tries to automate the install of every changing upstream package, which requires lots of testing. They seem to have automated test suites based on their webpage's green/red "dots" indicating a package passed/failed, however even installing software that was "passing" didn't always work for me.
Additionally, installing packages then tries to configure them based on command-line arguments... which are not the same for every package and are poorly documented for most packages...
A package manager can be made to work on Microsoft Windows, but this isn't "it" -- it might be an improvement. I haven't used Microsoft Windows in years and recently wanted to test out OpenSSH on Microsoft Windows (also terrible quality) so I tried Chocolatey and was quite disappointed.
The largest hurdle, I suspect, and the one that causes all of the design decisions in Chocolatey to be made the way they are is the prevalence of software with onerous distribution licensing such that they are not legally able to make a central repository under their control, and are not able to disassemble the installer packages and make sane packages with pre/post install scripts that operate consistently... But for something like OpenSSH it could have been made to work.
It's not quite a full package manager either - but it works well enough, should be easy to add package/manifests for, and does allow one to update installed packages:
https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Chocolatey-Compari...
It is nothing like apt-get or yum for Linux. For example it does not fix broken packages and missing libraries and other things.
Chocolatley requires an admin shell and then powershell in order to install.
The problem with a blanket statement for admin shell is that for almost everything you want to do with Windows, it requires administrative permissions to actually install things. So it's more that Windows requires admin permissions to run native installers like MSIs, InstallShield, InnoSetup, etc.
PowerShell is also been moved down to just an automated script install provider in choco. It will become optional once ScriptCS and others are supported as alternative automated script providers.
Think carefully before using Chocolatey. It is not, never has been, and never will be the default package system for Windows. IMO the writing is on the wall as MS ships OneGet with Windows 10; while I think I read something about the projects working together, or OneGet supporting Chocolatey repositories or something, I don't believe OneGet's 'native format' will be Chocolatey packages.
On top of this, Chocolatey is based on v2 of NuGet, which is a) terrible and b) superseded by v3, which is the go-forward version that has a different package format and capabilities.
I am not sure why anyone would seriously consider using Chocolatey for a new project today.
Some of those 10 points relate to Chocolatey:
* 1. OneGet isn’t technically a Package-Manager, it’s more of a Package-Manager-Manager. Its actual purpose is to bring together a diverse set of installers, package services, and inventory schemes under a set of unified APIs and PowerShell cmdlets.
* 2. OneGet is not another implementation of Chocolatey. when we released the initial prototype of OneGet at //Build 2014, I wrote a proof-of-concept Chocolatey provider to go along with it (mainly as a test of the interface itself, and a ‘template’ of what a package manager needs to do). On top of that, for quite some time it was the only package provider available for OneGet. And then everyone jumped on the “OneGet is a Chocolatey-compatible package manager” story. Sorry about that.
* 10. OneGet isn’t called OneGet. We renamed the “OneGet” PowerShell module to “PackageManagement” a while back.
Was there a reason for the renaming?
choco install adobereader dropbox googlechrome sysinternals -y
I laughed at that point because I completely agree that NuGet v2 isn't great at all. Also you forgot to mention that NuGet v3 is brand new and there isn't yet published documentation on how to get from one format to the next - https://github.com/NuGet/Home/issues/1870. Not sure how fast you expect Chocolatey to adopt NuGet v3, but it's a bit much to throw this argument in here as a reason NOT to use Chocolatey.
I guess my point re: Chocolatey is that they depended on a bad upstream tool that has moved in a different direction from what Chocolatey probably needs. So Chocolatey is either stuck on an old codebase - MS says they are going to maintain v2, but who thinks that is going to last? - or they are forking and maintaining themselves, which also seems unlikely as they risk giving up compatibility with all the NuGet repo software they also kind of depend on.
It's likely building on top of NuGet was a mistake on my part, but it's all there was at the time and it was pretty easy to get started. We don't need the tools folder and we don't like the content folder.
Since Chocolatey does everything once the NuGet package is in place related to automation scripts, it doesn't really matter that v3 doesn't support the pre or post scripts. I started working with the NuGet team a couple of summers ago about making the format more flexible, this was just as v3 work was starting to get ramped up.
At some point Chocolatey will likely not have any dependencies on NuGet itself, but will be compatible with NuGet packaging formats. To move more towards a machine package manager there are more things you need in the specification (like what versions of Windows does a package support as metadata, dependencies per OS, optional dependencies, virtuals, etc). Things that NuGet proper may never need.
My point being, Chocolatey has done a lot of growing up over the last year with a complete rewrite in C#, and will continue to grow up into a full fledged package manager over the next couple of years. There are some fundamental things we are still working out, but there are some amazing things in the pipeline coming for Chocolatey.
For whether we'd move from one format to the next isn't really a choice, it's a must. We'll need to do it in a backwards compatible way. https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/issues/508
Hindsight is amazingly much clearer than decisions you make at the time with all the constraints and requirements you have in the moment. :D
Recently my team started using it for cloud formation app deployment and I see it has reviewed and approved packages now.
I was also under the misaprehension that chocolatey packages contained binaries but they typically download from the software makers site at install time - so no binary interference to inject nasties by package authors.
Have to say I'm impressed with the updates to security and will look into using it privately as a result.
Thanks for your work!
Mostly because it wasn't created by Microsoft. I mean, let's be realistic here.
So, Windows programmers, how do get by without a package manager?
Or, if you insist on writing 'unmanaged code,' you are probably finding similar capabilities in native libraries distributed with Windows; it's DirectX's natural environment. Otherwise, you're responsible for doing as you suggest: downloading/compiling the various libraries and stashing them in a nominated area for use by your build toolchain.
Also there's always msys2/mingw64, which does have a package manager (pacman I think?) and you woudl then distribute the necessary runtimes with your program.
>choco list -lo
7zip autohotkey autohotkey.portable chocolatey clink ConEmu Cygwin dropbox Firefox git GoogleChrome nodejs paint.net skype sumatrapdf sumatrapdf.commandline tortoisesvn winmerge winscp
The main benefits, in my opinion, are:
* Scriptable *
For example, here's a script I've used to build a new Windows dev box: https://gist.github.com/jongalloway/ffc3a8c71dfdab4245bc
* Silent, no-BS installers *
Chocolatey packages are supposed to point to silent, no-nagware, no BS installers (specifying the correct command-line args for silent, lightweight installs if needed). Instead of hunting for the right "Download" button, just find the package on Chocolatey.org, maybe check the release history and comments if you're concerned, and off you go.
* Dependencies *
Since Chocolatey is based on NuGet, dependencies are a first class concept. That means that a tool that requires a specific version of imagemagick (random example) would depend on that version, Chocolatey would ensure that the deps are installed first. That has other impacts, such as making it easy to provide a customized version of an existing application (e.g. https://chocolatey.org/packages/EthanBrown.ConEmuConfig) or allowing you to build a meta-package that rolls up several other packages (e.g. "web dev loadout" or whatever).
If you're looking at Chocolatey, I highly recommend Boxstarter, which takes it to the next level with support for all kinds of things you'd want when automating machine builds on Windows: http://boxstarter.org/
You wrote that the Chocolatey Gallery had no formal review process, and in the same month (October 2014), a formal review process was introduced. The community feed on the Chocolatey Gallery has had moderation of packages since October 2014. I shared that information with you at the time we changed the security model in 2014, so I'm slightly disappointed that you failed to acknowledge that aspect has been fixed.
Not sure about all the negative comments here. It's OSS so if you have a negative experience and the time to write comments here, why not contribute back and post the same thing as an issue to get a discussion started with the team? It's actively being developed and the team behind it listens to the community.