• keen
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    3 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

  • Rose
    link
    fedilink
    03 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      03 days ago

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

  • @pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    03 days ago

    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

    • @mrsingh@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      03 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 .

  • themeatbridge
    link
    fedilink
    03 days ago

    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.

    • socsa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 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.

  • @AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    04 days ago

    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 can’t tell the difference between yum and rpm and apt and dnf

    • @mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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.

  • @Matombo@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    04 days ago

    apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output

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

    • @bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      04 days ago

      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.

        • @bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          03 days ago

          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. 🤣

          Converse walked so Nike could run with their tagline.

          • @ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            03 days ago

            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 Ötzi’s fucking bird’s nest shoes were probably more comfortable.

    • @splendoruranium@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      04 days ago

      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.

      • @rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 days ago

        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.

        • @hactar42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          03 days ago

          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.

      • @easily3667@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 days ago

        Nah a lot of people now think screen time is bad without evidence. Never would be allowed to get on a computer at 3-4.

        • @splendoruranium@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          04 days ago

          Nah a lot of people now think screen time is bad without evidence. Never would be allowed to get on a computer at 3-4.

          You had your own computer before you could read…?

          • @easily3667@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            04 days ago

            I didn’t claim to understand it but I do claim to remember my sister trying to explain it to me, and that computer only existed during a certain time period.

        • console.log(bathing_in_bismuth)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          04 days ago

          I think there is a difference between spending hours trying to understand a system or solving a problem vs hours of doomscrolling, brainrot and dopamine genocide

        • @dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Excessive screen time at 3 is bad, and we do have evidence. Computers from the 80s we grew up with have nothing in common with today’s highly advanced skinner boxes. It has been so since the age of TV, but today’s tech is worse. They fuck up cognitive and social development really bad. Using screens from time to time is fine, but having a tablet in your face every waking minute hurts even adults.

          • @easily3667@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            This seems more like correlation than anything else. Not that it’s necessarily wrong but it seems very abstract. For example it says an hour of tv time is bad, but that’s just consumption and it also doesn’t mention, for example, engagement. It says some types of content can reduce focus, sure, but people usually don’t offer that type of nuance when they say “screen time bad!”. It also says clearly that there are other types of content that are valuable. It doesn’t have an explanation why reading a book is more or less engaging and helpful than say, watching the same story on tv?

            Point is im 100% confident there are specific things that are bad, but the blanket ban seems silly and ineffective, potentially harming the child.

          • @tehn00bi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            04 days ago

            I follow the idea that phones/tablets are an individual experience, while tv is a social experience (assuming everyone is in the same room) so my kid has minimal tablet time, except on really long car trips. But has perhaps more than I would like tv time. But we are in there as a family. It’s very difficult in todays world with so much individual experience coming from a device.

  • @DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    04 days ago

    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.

    • Captain Aggravated
      link
      fedilink
      English
      03 days ago

      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?

      • @DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        03 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

      • @DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        03 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.

      • @cmhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        04 days ago

        Yes, but apt-get is missing search for instance, because that relates to the cache, so apt-cache provides it.

        apt combines all those often used commands, and provides a nicer shell presentation.