[ubuntu-studio-users] apt vs apt-get
astraljava at kapsi.fi
Tue Aug 30 08:36:49 UTC 2016
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 09:27:49AM +0200, brian at linuxsynths.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:01:03 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 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
> > together.
This is true, it's always better to have all features related to one specific
area (package management in this case) in one app.
My only gripe with searching is that the package name isn't a distinct field
anymore, so I'll continue using apt-cache for that as then it's only a
> > 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.
Yes, that's moving to more sophisticated usage. And quite frankly, if we're
talking about technologically inexperienced people, wouldn't they use a GUI
(Software Center?) anyway?
> > Why do you think that apt-get is easier to use for newbies?
> > Regards,
> > Ralf
> I don't know why it would be easier. But
> I was a newbie when I learned of it, and I discovered Apt later on but
> stuck with apt-get anyway. But probably just because of habit.
In my case, it's already in muscle memory. I'm learning away from it, but
oftentimes the "-get" just automagically appears there. :)
> I would
> hazard a guess however, that if one of the two has a GUI, then I would
> probably go with that. Newbies like GUIs I think. Lots of people have a
> bad taste in their mouths about linux because it was so terminal-based.
> (Even if using a terminal has definite advantages, for sure. Just not
> for the beginning coming from Windows.)
There is already a GUI, so I don't think we need to really consider this from
One really good plus for apt's scoreboard is the progress bar at the bottom of
the terminal screen. I'm sure there are others, but that's the thing that jumps
at your eyes.
In the end, as several tools already suggest using apt instead of apt-get (even
apt-get ), I'd say moving towards it is the right thing to do.
jaska at ardbeg:~ 11:34:22 $ sudo apt-get --dry-run remove gedit
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
gedit-common gir1.2-git2-glib-1.0 gir1.2-gucharmap-2.90 gir1.2-zeitgeist-2.0
gjs libgjs0e libmozjs-24-0v5 libpeas-1.0-0-python3loader python-cssutils
python-pocket-lint rubber texlive
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
astraljava @ freenode
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-studio-users