zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
Author here, Because it's sure to come up here is a comment I wrote on Reddit that clarifies somethings, I haven't updated the original article since I'm not sure what the etiquette for updating a highly shared article is.

------

Code being copied isn't an issue. I knew full well what it meant to release something opensource and I don't regret it one bit. What was copied with no credit is the foundation of the project. How it actually works. If I were the patenting type, this would be the thing you would patent. ps. I don't regret not patenting anything. And I don't mean the general concept of package/app managers, they have been done a hundred times. If you look at similar projects across OSes, Homebrew, Chocolaty, Scoop, ninite etc; you'll see they all do it in their own way. However, WinGet works pretty much identical to the way AppGet works. Do you want to know how Microsoft WinGet works? go read the article (https://keivan.io/appget-what-chocolatey-wasnt/) I wrote 2 years ago about how AppGet works.

I'm not even upset they copied me. To me, that's a validation of how sound my idea was. What upsets me is how no credit was given.

>>kayone+Tk
Calling it "WinGet" was the real punch in the gut.

Does Microsoft select for assholes or something? There's a thousand other package manager names [1] in the wild and they chose that one.

So much for "developers, developers, developers"...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_manag...

>>dmix+fO
In all fairness:

- "NuGet" is super-popular in .NET circles (included in Visual Studio by default)

- "apt-get" is the classic tool for Windows Subsystem for Linux

So "WinGet" certainly "makes sense" as a name without being a direct ripoff of AppGet

>>TAForO+lR
It still looks really bad. If you're going to copy and kill off [1] an OSS project, when you're a major company who owns the platform, with a long history of this sort of thing, after baiting the developer for information, then copying the name on top of it is just cruel and in poor taste.

Context matters. That's the key point here.

Plus your two examples out of a hundred or so examples doesn't make it common either (or maybe one in a half examples since apt/apt-get/apt-cache are the three Debian programs under APT umbrella).

[1] there was no way this project was going to continue despite their nonsense about "broadening the options in the community", they knew what they were doing