Yes but apt-get isn’t a seperate package from apt, just a seperate command. All of the apt-* commands are part of the same package, which is now Apt-3.0. This isn’t really what the user above you was asking.
All well and good, but that doesn’t cover “better”. Does this mean apt-get et. al. were improved, or just apt? Where’s the documentation for this “improvement”?
I honestly don’t understand why use apt anywhere. Why don’t always use apt-get so everything’s consistent and you don’t have to keep two apis for the same job on your head?
When scripting, it’s better to use apt-get instead of apt:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/590699/should-i-use-apt-or-apt-get-in-shell-scripting
Yes but apt-get isn’t a seperate package from apt, just a seperate command. All of the apt-* commands are part of the same package, which is now Apt-3.0. This isn’t really what the user above you was asking.
Never knew that! Always wondered what this apt-get was, supposed it was some older alias or something
It kind of is. For a very long time it was the only option.
All well and good, but that doesn’t cover “better”. Does this mean apt-get et. al. were improved, or just apt? Where’s the documentation for this “improvement”?
Hence my question.
I honestly don’t understand why use apt anywhere. Why don’t always use apt-get so everything’s consistent and you don’t have to keep two apis for the same job on your head?
For interactive use, apt provides a nicer interface. I can easily see why some people would prefer that.