• harmsy@lemmy.world
    1·
    4 天前

    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.

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    16·
    6 天前

    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·
      6 天前

      apt install nano (simple, clean)

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

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

  • keen@lemmy.world
    12·
    6 天前

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

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    81·
    6 天前

    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·
      6 天前
      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
    111·
    7 天前

    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
      81·
      7 天前

      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·
      7 天前

      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·
        6 天前

        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

  • Rose@slrpnk.net
    4·
    6 天前

    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?

  • dan@upvote.au
    2691·
    8 天前

    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.

    • nelson@lemmy.world
      73·
      8 天前

      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 ).

      • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
        33·
        8 天前

        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

        • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
          2·
          8 天前

          Thats weird, they do have an arch official package and that’s the one they usually don’t make because AUR is a thing. Have you checked lately?

          • bisby@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            7 天前

            An “official” arch package? The arch package is packaged by the arch maintainers. https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/discord

            The maintainers of the PKGBUILD are all arch maintainers, which just downloads the generic .tar.gz file discord provides and puts it in all the places you need for you.

            The “official” arch packages are just PKGBUILDs like the AUR, except prebuilt, managed (and signed) by the arch team.

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              3·
              7 天前

              I didn’t know, thanks! I guess in hindsight I meant “official” as in, it’s not just some rando, I can trust it won’t break, and I don’t have to manually download the stuff every time xD

              • bisby@lemmy.worldEnglish
                41·
                7 天前

                Yep! All those things are true, but it’s due to the hard work of the archlinux team and not discord doing anything valuable. The debian/ubuntu/etc team could probably repackage the tar.xz or include the deb file in their official repos if they wanted. They just don’t. And given how simple the workaround is, i don’t really blame them. Debian isn’t going to ship something that will require constant updating to work with remote servers, and ubuntu probably just wants you to use a snap anyway.

                The archlinux team is just pretty cool.

          • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            7 天前

            I have checked on every new update because their fuckass client apparently can’t update itself in big 2025 and instead just opens your browser to the download url because that’ll convince people that Linux is great.

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              6·
              7 天前

              Updating itself isn’t really the Linux way of things. The Linux way is to have a centralised place like pacman or apt and to download everything at once. Every app having their own download and update system sounds like a nightmare.

              • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                6 天前

                The nightmare in question is windows. My point was that since their client isn’t distributed by a mechanism with automatic updates, they could at least have made it work, but no.

      • dan@upvote.au
        9·
        7 天前

        apt and apt-get both use dpkg internally, but these days it’s essentially seen as an implementation detail that regular users don’t need to know about.

        dpkg doesn’t resolve dependencies (that’s a feature of apt) which means that if you install a Debian package with dpkg, you’ll have to manually install all dependencies first, and they won’t be marked as automatically installed (so autoremove won’t remove them if they’re not needed any more). Using apt solves that.

        The web suggests dpkg because either the articles are old, or they’re based on outdated knowledge :)

          • Unbecredible@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            6 天前

            Descheduling is a natural part of life, buddy. All us scripts are written into existence and our hearts set beating to the cadence of great Cron’s ever-ticking quartz clock. Until Cron takes us off his schedule and our memory is freed once again.

            Back to the silicon.

            • Joe Abercrombie

            The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?

            Answer.

            That you are here—that life exists and identity,

            That the powerful OS goes on, and you may contribute a process.

            That the powerful OS goes on, and you may contribute a process.

            • Walt Whitman
  • DonutsRMeh@lemmy.world
    1581·
    7 天前

    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@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      7 天前

      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·
        7 天前

        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
        3·
        7 天前

        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.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    432·
    8 天前

    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.

    • dan@upvote.au
      24·
      8 天前

      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, which can change between releases.

    • Colloidal@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      7 天前

      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.