this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
52 points (96.4% liked)

Linux

6952 readers
902 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Anyone got a link to a meaningful description of improvement, rather than "pretty colours" and a "better package solver"?

My most frequent use of apt is inside a Dockerfile, so care factor on UI is not high and "better" isn't a measurable metric.

[–] darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Yes but apt-get isn't a seperate package from apt, just a seperate command. All of the apt-* commands are part of the same package, which is now Apt-3.0. This isn't really what the user above you was asking.

[–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Never knew that! Always wondered what this apt-get was, supposed it was some older alias or something

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago

It kind of is. For a very long time it was the only option.

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I honestly don't understand why use apt anywhere. Why don't always use apt-get so everything's consistent and you don't have to keep two apis for the same job on your head?

[–] darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

For interactive use, apt provides a nicer interface. I can easily see why some people would prefer that.

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 2 points 1 week ago

All well and good, but that doesn't cover "better". Does this mean apt-get et. al. were improved, or just apt? Where's the documentation for this "improvement"?

Hence my question.

[–] who@feddit.org -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)