Anyone got a link to a meaningful description of improvement, rather than “pretty colours” and a “better package solver”?
My most frequent use of apt is inside a Dockerfile, so care factor on UI is not high and “better” isn’t a measurable metric.
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.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=apt+3.0
Edit for those who couldn’t be bothered to click through the first result:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/blob/main/debian/changelog
We really need a user friendly way to show packages that are really manually installed by the user (some automatically installed package are marked as manually installed, see the answers to this question).
even nix interface is known as being kinda bad but you still have a easy way to do this.
Parallel downloads finally?
