zlacker

[parent] [thread] 12 comments
1. michae+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-28 10:54:41
> 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.

replies(3): >>tiagod+06 >>genera+ch >>6gvONx+6D
2. tiagod+06[view] [source] 2020-05-28 11:54:39
>>michae+(OP)
How does AppGet compete with apt-get?
replies(3): >>hoffs+C7 >>philli+ed >>meddle+oB
◧◩
3. hoffs+C7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 12:11:52
>>tiagod+06
It's not about competing, it's about naming
replies(1): >>arctic+lC
◧◩
4. philli+ed[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 12:57:29
>>tiagod+06
I thought AppGet was a pun on apt-get and thought the name was clever.

I thought it was better named than Chocolatey or Scoop.

Edit: plan > pun. (no idea why I wrote plan, i think I wanted to write play)

replies(1): >>mumble+jn
5. genera+ch[view] [source] 2020-05-28 13:23:03
>>michae+(OP)
I think there's a huge and obvious difference between an open-source dev naming a package manager for a non-Linux platform "AppGet" in reference/homage/whatever to apt-get; and Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company, dangling a carrot in front of the developer of a program called AppGet then ghosting him, forking his open-source project and calling it WinGet, and not even having the decency to publicly credit his work.
replies(1): >>svick+hz7
◧◩◪
6. mumble+jn[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 14:00:25
>>philli+ed
Chocolatey is a pun on NuGet, which is presumably inspired by apt-get.
◧◩
7. meddle+oB[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 15:05:42
>>tiagod+06
It doesn't, but the name is too similar to apt-get. It's a naming issue.
◧◩◪
8. arctic+lC[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 15:09:26
>>hoffs+C7
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.

replies(1): >>Throwa+GE
9. 6gvONx+6D[view] [source] 2020-05-28 15:13:09
>>michae+(OP)
I think the authors umbrage is not about naming it that, but them copying his project after this whole process and then naming it that and still not really crediting him.
◧◩◪◨
10. Throwa+GE[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 15:21:06
>>arctic+lC
And why is "WinGet" not also a reference to apt-get? I've never even heard of AppGet before this morning.
replies(1): >>fluidc+dV
◧◩◪◨⬒
11. fluidc+dV[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-28 16:42:07
>>Throwa+GE
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.

replies(1): >>efreak+Rr2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
12. efreak+Rr2[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-29 01:20:53
>>fluidc+dV
> 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.

◧◩
13. svick+hz7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-05-30 21:31:45
>>genera+ch
I believe they didn't actually fork his code, what they did is build a brand new project that is heavily inspired by AppGet.

Also, they have now corrected the credit: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/winget-install-le...

[go to top]