this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
857 points (98.6% liked)

linuxmemes

24785 readers
2459 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
  • Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn, no politics, no trolling or ragebaiting.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  • 5. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ Language/язык/Sprache
  • This is primarily an English-speaking community. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
  • Comments written in other languages are allowed.
  • The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
  • Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
  • 6. (NEW!) Regarding public figuresWe all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations.
  • Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
  • We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
  • Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed.
  • Β 

    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.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS
     
    top 50 comments
    sorted by: hot top controversial new old
    [–] [email protected] 21 points 6 days ago

    Me use apt. Why use many letter when few letter do trick?

    [–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

    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

    [–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

    apt install nano (simple, clean)

    apt-get install nano (works too, but more detailed output)

    Apt-get give more technical output , helps in scripting .

    [–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    Use apt in the shell and use apt-get in scripts, because apt has beautiful shell output but it isn't script safe

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

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)
    [–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

    "Hello, I would like to -Syu a package." "Can I -Rsc this?"

    Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

    Btw, never Syu a single package

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

    Correct, always Syyu it

    [–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago
    1. You can't just be up there and just doin' a apt like that.

    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.

    [–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

    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?

    [–] JackbyDev 3 points 6 days ago

    Apt looks a little prettier I think. But I may be wrong.

    [–] [email protected] 347 points 1 week ago (1 children)

    The binary is called apt-get. There are others like apt-cache etc.

    Apt is a script that just figures out which binary to use and passes the arguments on.

    • apt update -> apt-get update
    • apt policy -> apt-cache policy
    [–] [email protected] 126 points 1 week ago

    You know, I thought I knew why, but this was new information to me, so I guess I didn't.

    Thanks for sharing this concise explico!

    [–] [email protected] 286 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    These days, apt is for humans whereas apt-get is for scripts. apt's output is designed for humans and may change between releases, whereas apt-get is guaranteed to remain consistent to avoid breaking scripts.

    apt combines several commands together. For example, you can use it to install packages from both repos and local files (e.g. apt install ./foo.deb) whereas apt-get is only for packages from repos and you'd need to use dpkg for local packages.

    [–] [email protected] 76 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Huh TIL.

    I never considered trying to install a package from a local file through apt, but always dpkg. End result is the same of course. The web suggests dpkg rather than apt as well ( or at least the pages I ended up on ).

    [–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Discord is distributed as a .Deb if you don't use flatpak because they can't be bothered to set up a repo.

    The very useful thing about local file install is that unlike dpkg, apt will install dependencies automatically

    load more comments (9 replies)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] [email protected] 58 points 1 week ago (4 children)
    [–] [email protected] 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You forgot to "beep boop." Please report for debugging.

    load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] [email protected] 162 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    apt is a newer, more user-friendly front-end for apt-get and apt-cache.

    apt = combines commands like install, remove, update, upgrade into one tool, with prettier output

    #apt-get = older, lower-level, more script-friendly For normal use, just use apt now. For scripting where 100% backward compatibility matters, use apt-get.

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

    If I recall correctly, Linux Mint did their own thing for a bit with the apt command so there were two different implementations out there for awhile?

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

    I don't know if they modified apt at all. I know they have their mint tools that call apt through some python code, like mintinstall = apt install <package> for the software manager and mintupgrade = apt upgrade for updating mint versions ... Etc

    [–] [email protected] 66 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    TIL apt isn't literally the same thing as apt-get

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

    Lol. You're not alone. I've thought that for the longest time ever. Until one I had the question pop into my head and started searching it.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] [email protected] 101 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Following this post for replies, for a friend of course

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] [email protected] 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

    apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output

    apts output tries to be more human readable and is subject to change

    [–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

    WARNING: Aptitude does not have a stable CLI interface.

    [–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

    aptitude is yet another dpkg wrapper

    [–] [email protected] 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    apt is newer and mostly supersedes apt-get/apt-cache/etc tools, tries to be a more-approachable frontend.

    They interoperate though, so if you're happy with using a mix of them, go for it. I generally just use apt.

    EDIT: There were also some older attempts to produce a unified frontend, like aptitude.

    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] [email protected] 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

    🎡

    APT, APT, APT, APT

    Just meet me at the...

    🎡

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

    Uh-huh uh-huh...

    [–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    One has super cow powers, the other one doesn't.

    load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί