<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>I think it's great that Chocolatey exits and with Microsoft's recent announcement, it's only going to get better, but it's not something we'd consider at this time:<div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Most of our significant packages are site licensed and customised to our environment (eg Office/CS6/Endnote/SPSS...) negating any open repository benefit.</span></div><div><br></div><div>We centrally manage all of our PCs (and indeed Mac's using WPKG's cousin Munki) - packages get installed on startup according to a generic or specific profile according to host name - this guarantees up to dateness & compliance. Chocolatey certainly didn't used to do this, I believe it's evolving and does at least now do administrative installs.</div><div><br></div><div>A real alternative to WPKG for us would be Puppet or MS System Centre or Symantec Alteris, all of which have a similar feature set to WPKG - but the technical debt involved would make it a pretty expensive move!</div><div><br></div><div>That said if there was something like <a href="https://github.com/autopkg/autopkg">Autopkg</a> for Munki that allowed Chocolatey to update WPKG packages, then we'd be talking!</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers Jon <br><br><div><span name="x"></span>-- <br>Jon Rhoades<br>Research Information Systems<br>Eastern Hill Academic Centre<br>(Incorporating The University of Melbourne Departments of Medicine, Surgery and Clinical School (St.Vincents), St Vincents Institute and OBrien Institute)<br><br>www.stv.unimelb.edu.au<br>www.svi.edu.au<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="chrome-extension://fcdjadjbdihbaodagojiomdljhjhjfho/css/atd.css"><br><div style="text-align:center; width:391px;"><br></div><span name="x"></span><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Marco Schmidt" <schmidt@fgcz.ethz.ch><br><b>To: </b>wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, 1 November, 2014 4:44:51 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [wpkg-users] Chocolatey?<br><br> From my point of view:<br><br>1. Chocolatery is under active development/support<br>2. Chocolatery has a huge community<br>3. Chocolatery uses "modern" powershell<br><br>I am sorry to say, but I guess, the days of WPKG are counted.<br><br>Greetings ...<br> Marco<br><br><br>On 31.10.2014 13:44, Jon Goldberg wrote:<br>> We've been using wpkg here for several years; a new hire said that they<br>> previously used Chocolatey to perform similar functions.<br>><br>> Has anyone evaluated wpkg vs. Chocolatey and come to any conclusions?<br>> Is anyone using them together?<br>><br>> Jon<br>><br>><br>><br>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> SSLrack - get your cheap cheap SSL certificates (standard, wildcard, EV)<br>> http://www.sslrack.com/<br>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> wpkg-users mailing list<br>> wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org<br>> http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users<br>><br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>SSLrack - get your cheap cheap SSL certificates (standard, wildcard, EV)<br>http://www.sslrack.com/<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/<br>_______________________________________________<br>wpkg-users mailing list<br>wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org<br>http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users<br></div></div></body></html>