this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
55 points (96.6% liked)

Linux

6879 readers
123 users here now

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

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day 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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] FizzyOrange 3 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)