• keen@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 day ago

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

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    16·
    1 day 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
      5·
      1 day 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@lemmy.world
    9·
    1 day 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@piefed.socialEnglish
      3·
      13 hours 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.

  • Matombo@feddit.org
    64·
    2 days ago

    apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output

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

  • Rose@slrpnk.net
    3·
    1 day 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?

  • DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
    164·
    3 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.

      • DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 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.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      2 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
        2·
        2 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

  • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
    344·
    3 days ago

    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
    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      123·
      3 days 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!

  • Barometer3689@feddit.nl
    19·
    2 days ago

    jesus I feel old, and I am only in my 30s. I remember not having apt. How young are linux users nowadays?

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      15·
      2 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
          2·
          23 hours 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.worldEnglish
            1·
            22 hours 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.

            • bluewing@lemm.ee
              1·
              22 hours ago

              Taglines are always silly, that’s kind of the point to make you remember. But it sold a LOT of shoes.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          1·
          23 hours ago

          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…

    • splendoruranium@infosec.pubEnglish
      11·
      2 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.zipEnglish
        5·
        2 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
          2·
          2 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.orgEnglish
        1·
        2 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.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 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.orgEnglish
            2·
            1 day 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.

            • dustyData@lemmy.world
              1·
              15 hours ago

              What is this straw man? No one, not in my comment, or in the article linked has advocated for a blanket ban. The word excessive has been there this whole time.

          • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
            3·
            2 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.

        • splendoruranium@infosec.pubEnglish
          3·
          2 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.orgEnglish
            2·
            2 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.

    • r0ertel@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 days ago

      Ditto. I started my linux journey with Slackware 1.0 that I got in a book. I quickly got tired of dual booting so I picked up a used 486dx66 on Craigslist. It even came with a green on black 12" CRT! I took a class and started hacking on the kernel to learn the innards. I fixed a semaphore issue, improved the task scheduler for performance and constantly rebuilt the kernel for performance (before modularized drivers were a thing). I learned not to panic from a kernel panic.

      Slackware’s “package manager” was a notepad next to the computer. I switched to debian later and loved the whole idea of a package manager. Mostly because it was a trove of free software, but also because it would handle all the dependencies for me and cleanly uninstall (at a time when disk space was valuable).

      Those were the days! Long live apt & apt-get!

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    12·
    2 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.worldEnglish
      9·
      2 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.

    • embed_me@programming.dev
      2·
      2 days ago

      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)

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 day ago

        I’ve had better results by including “man” in my searches to find the man pages, but man that makes for some questionable looking searches

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    50·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • Colloidal@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      Aptitude is great (my favorite way of managing packages), but it’s a TUI program. You can use it as CLI, at which point it mimics apt-get.

      So I would say it never attempted to unify apt commands, by rather it successfully provided a user friendly way to do most (all?) of what you could do with apt CLI tools.

    • dan@upvote.au
      26·
      3 days ago

      mostly supersedes apt-get/apt-cache/etc tools,

      Except for in scripts. Debian guarantee that the output format of apt-get will never change and thus it’s safe to use in scripts that parse the output, whereas they don’t have the same guarantee for apt.