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

I feel for the guy, but someone who called their package manager "app get" in 2014 when "apt get" has existed for since 1998 is in no position to take umbrage at a competing package manager having a six-letter name ending in get.

>>michae+xb1
How does AppGet compete with apt-get?

>>tiagod+xh1
It's not about competing, it's about naming

>>hoffs+9j1
To me, context matters. 'AppGet' sounds like a friendly hat tip to the legendary apt-get, given that they don't compete.

'WinGet', a direct copy of 'AppGet', is not a friendly reference IMO.

>>arctic+SN1
And why is "WinGet" not also a reference to apt-get? I've never even heard of AppGet before this morning.

>>Throwa+dQ1
AppGet sounds like "apt-get".

On the other hand "WinGet" sounds like "wing-it" i.e. release any piece of junk and fix later. Maybe. Which TBF does seem to be how Microsoft works anyway.

>>fluidc+K62
> release any piece of junk and fix later. Maybe. Which TBF does seem to be how Microsoft works anyway.

It's been a while, but I managed to corrupt oneget/package management on windows within a month of it being released; I spent about a week trying to fix it and eventually figured out what the problem was (though I've since forgotten the details) only to find it unfixable without reinstalling Windows.

Unfortunately, reinstalling Windows means Office won't reactivate--I've taken it into a Microsoft store, and they couldn't help me.