apt vs. apt-get for beginners

Lately, in a music-related forum (recording.de) there was a discussion (again) on whether Linux is/could be a valid choice for recording, and for making music. One of the commenters – a strong proponent of using Windows and paid commercial software DAWs (digital audio workstations) – said:

“Command line? My god, we’re living in the 21st century!”

– or something along that, don’t recall his actual words. And these actual words don’t matter that much, since I’ve heard them so often.

No, you *don’t need to* use the command line when using Linux anymore these days. For installing software, you can use the fine available tools like synaptic et al – but sometimes, the command line is much faster than to click around with your mouse. And where Windows users are forced to first search the interweb for software they want to get, at least we people using Linux have it much and far better and easier with the repositories provided by the distributors of our fine software.

Which brings me back (sorry for the short rant) to apt vs. apt-get. apt is newer, but why should you use it? Found this nice explanation targeted to beginner-like questions like that one:


I’m mostly using apt since a while, but still I found some things in there I simply didn’t know (using apt-cache search or apt-cache show until now). I consider myself almost a Linux veteran by now, but I don’t dig that deep into it like I used to – so I’m still reading articles like these. Nice to know, that’s all.

Anyway – I found this useful, so I wanted to share it here. Enjoy reading it, if you’re interested in Debian- and Ubuntu-based command lines.

Leave a Reply