<story><title>Kinda like apt-get, but for Windows </title><url>http://chocolatey.org</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>SideburnsOfDoom</author><text>The problem that I have with chocolatey is: It&apos;s all about the installs. You&apos;d hope that the people doing it would know how installs work.&lt;p&gt;But the default place where chocolatey installs is &quot;C:\chocolatey&quot;, and &quot;C:\&quot; is where people who don&apos;t understand windows file system layout put things.&lt;p&gt;The docs ( &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey/wiki/DefaultChocolateyInstallReasoning&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey/wiki/DefaultChocola...&lt;/a&gt; ) make a plausible case that this &lt;i&gt;option&lt;/i&gt; might be justified &lt;i&gt;sometimes&lt;/i&gt;. Saying &quot;we&apos;ll &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; put it somewhere nonstandard because some people might sometimes want to install it when they don&apos;t have permissions to put programs where they belong&quot; is unconvincing.&lt;p&gt;The other argument put forward &quot;It&apos;s not installed through the registry&quot; (so?) and &quot;it&apos;s a Special core component tool&quot; (it&apos;s not special to anyone who hasn&apos;t installed it yet) are equally weak.&lt;p&gt;This choice of install folder should arguably  be allowed. But it&apos;s a rubbish default, a poor first impression and undermines confidence that they know what they&apos;re doing. It is inexcusable that &quot;C:\Chocolatey&quot; is default and &quot;C:\Program Files\Chocolatey&quot; is a set-up that one does manually.</text></comment>
<story><title>Kinda like apt-get, but for Windows </title><url>http://chocolatey.org</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>morsch</author><text>Seems to me like having the infrastructure in place is only a first step. It&apos;s only as valuable as the packages available within the infrastructure. And having a useful set of up-to-date packages is a huge amount of continuous (!) work. You need a lot of volunteers for that, or, ideally, the cooperation of the upstream developers.&lt;p&gt;It works very well for Ubuntu (and mostly, I think, plain Debian), as the Debian package archives are very good in the first place, and beyond those there is an ecosystem of volunteer or developer maintained PPAs, and beyond &lt;i&gt;those&lt;/i&gt; there are individual .debs released by volunteers or devs that you can plug in, sidestepping the server requirement.&lt;p&gt;It&apos;s a cultural difference. It took me quite a while to adapt to it when I switched from Windows to Ubuntu; I was extremely sceptical at first, though now I love it.</text></comment>