apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output
apts output tries to be more human readable and is subject to change
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo
in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output
apts output tries to be more human readable and is subject to change
WARNING: Aptitude does not have a stable CLI interface.
aptitude is yet another dpkg wrapper
Me use apt. Why use many letter when few letter do trick?
It's been a long time since I've needed to use either. Instead I typically use Synaptic Package Manager, Mint's Software Manager, or gdebi. Guess I'm just a filthy casual.
How my brain distinguishes them:
apt-get when you want full verbose output
apt when you want to feel fancy with progress bars and colours
apt install nano (simple, clean)
apt-get install nano (works too, but more detailed output)
Apt-get give more technical output , helps in scripting .
Use apt in the shell and use apt-get in scripts, because apt has beautiful shell output but it isn't script safe
jesus I feel old, and I am only in my 30s. I remember not having apt. How young are linux users nowadays?
I got tennis shoes older than you, (literally a pair of original Converse I bought new back in the 1970s). I was there before the original chains of Unix, DOS, and finally Linux were foraged. I saw OS2 die in battle. And I saw the dark time of when paper and pencils and slide rules vanished from this earth.
The knowledge of apt-get and apt only matters to those warriors of the Cli when they wield the sword of sudo to vanquish the evils that exist when upgrading. For they do the bidding of the dark wizards of Dev, holders of the command su.
Now that I have demonstrated my age by showing everyone how senile I am. 'apt install' is aimed at users to give a nicer response to it's use. It need not be backwards compatible either. 'Apt-get install' is older and is meant to be usable as a lower level command and to work with other APT based tools.
What does this mean for you today? Not a damn thing. I still always type: sudo apt-get install when using a deb based dsitro out of sheer habit. But it's not needed the vast majority of the unwashed masses. So feel free to just type apt install to help prevent carpel finger nail.
FYI the original Converse shoes came out in 1917. Now get off my lawn.
That's interesting, I did not know that! Thanks Stranger!
Now, if you do not remember or know the "Converse. Limousines for the Feet" tagline. Then get of MY lawn yet again. π€£
Converse walked so Nike could run with their tagline.
I don't remember that Converse tagline ... but back then I was wearing Sears Toughskins instead of Levis, that should make it clear how fashionable I was. "Limousines for the Feet" is a pretty laughable slogan, though, since chucks are about the least comfortable shoes in the history of humanity - even Γtzi's fucking bird's nest shoes were probably more comfortable.
Taglines are always silly, that's kind of the point to make you remember. But it sold a LOT of shoes.
Pfft, n00b
I can remember using punch card readers to access inventory data, I have used paper punch tape to load CNC programs into machining centers and dragging arouind a reader we had mounted on a 4 wheel garden cart, (I can still remember when the tape reader fell off that cart too). And marveling at getting a 3 1/2" drive installed into a machine to load programs and how much faster and easier that was.
Gods, I either need a lobotomy or just to die to forget those memories.........
jesus I feel old, and I am only in my 30s. I remember not having apt. How young are linux users nowadays?
Well... how old were you when you got your first computer? That young.
Dicey proposition, some mid and older genX grew up before home computers were commonplace.
When I was in my tweens, only really affluent people had computers. Schools had one single computer in a classroom or maybe a couple in a lab, and almost no one was computer literate.
I meant that in the sense of "At least that young". Yes naturally the age of first contact gets lower as computers become more commonplace. Then again I think true desktop computers are very much on the downturn once more.
Can confirm, I'm right on the edge of Gen-X and Millennials. I was the only one of my friends who had a computer pretty much all the way through elementary school. And the only reason we had computers in our house was because my dad was a computer engineer. By the time I was in highschool pretty much everyone had at least a family computer.
Me laughing in pacman
"Hello, I would like to -Syu a package." "Can I -Rsc this?"
Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
Btw, never Syu a single package
Correct, always Syyu it
apt is for like when you want to, and apt get is the other way to get the apt. And then if it doesn't, sudo apt will, or then sudo apt get. Like if you're just doing an apt, and then you also need to apt get, you can.
1a. An apt-get is when you
1b. Okay well listen. An apt-get is when you get the
1c. Let me start over
1c-a. The user is not allowed to do a motion to the, uh, kernel, that prohibits the kernel from doing, you know, just trying to get the apt. You can't do that.
1c-b. Once the user is in the terminal, he can't be over here and say to the packag, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna apt you out! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.
1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to apt and then don't get, you have to still apt. You cannot not apt. Does that make any sense?
1c-b(2). You gotta be, typing motion of the command, and then, until you just apt-get it.
This is one of the reasons I need to set up Linux at home. I use it at work but who knows what the flavor of the week is?
At this point I canβt tell the difference between yum and rpm and apt and dnf
Edit: realized you meant in the sense of hot swapping flavors after I typed out a whole explanation lol. Should start recommending niche distros and collect package managers like trading cards lol.
--
yum = dnf, dnf is just the newer version which was rewritten several times.
apt is a weird attempt to "upgrade" apt-get with better user interface without messing with the compatibility of apt-get used by scripts and whatnot.
Both of these are dependency handling package managers which do all the magic of installing required subpackges when you want something.
rpm is the underlying system package manager which deals with the actual task of installing, removing, and generating packages in the .rpm format. It is analogous to Debian's dpkg which uses the .deb format. It's usually not used by the end user unless you need to play with a package directly like with a .rpm or .deb file.
Hence why some distros (or people) have their own dependency package manager, like zypper on OpenSUSE (rpm) or Aptitude on Debian (deb).
Although I think Aptitude might just be a fancy wrapper for apt lol.
Thanks
Me too but I am just zen at this point knowing the knowledge is one search away (I don't even have to read the man)
Iβve had better results by including βmanβ in my searches to find the man pages, but man that makes for some questionable looking searches
Me, I'm old, so I just keep using apt-get
, because that's all we had back in the day, and I never bothered to learn what's the big deal about apt
. It's just a frontend, isn't it?
Apt looks a little prettier I think. But I may be wrong.