[ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Mon Aug 29 12:01:03 UTC 2016

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:14:55 +0200, brian at linuxsynths.com wrote:
>Funny! I would have said about the same thing, but for apt-get.


apt and apt-get make not much of a difference, it's just that apt does
use an easy to understand name instead if dist-upgrade, which is named
full-upgrade and a newbie don't need to use apt-cache or dpkg to
search, show or list. It also provides an option to edit sources.list,
so a newbie does not need to know where it's located. Since apt is new,
it doesn't need to be backwards compatible. Since it's the new official
Ubuntu command line tool for package management, pitfalls introduced by
other user-friendly tools, at the moment just aptitude comes to mind,
could be ruled out, since Ubuntu and apt defaults will fit very well

I can't see any advantage for a newbie, when dealing with apt-get,
instead of learning how to use apt. Advanced users likely prefer the
apt-get defaults, I at least temporarily need to use apt with

  -o APT::Color=\"0\"

because otherwise the output could be unreadable on my monitor. To get
completely rid of it, I would have to edit the config. That's why I
agree that apt-get could be more comfortable for experienced users,
used to it.

Why do you think that apt-get is easier to use for newbies?


More information about the ubuntu-studio-users mailing list