Less options and it expects user input, so when you update and there’s a changelog or warning, it shows it to you and you can read it. It doesn’t continue because it thinks you’re there reading it. The options and output are subject to change, so you don’t want it in a script. Apt-get will always have the same options and expected output for automation purposes.
Apart from letting you read the changelog, I would call it less of a “good for humans” but “bad for scripting”. Maybe it’s just me, but less options was never a good quality in my books
Didn’t know we were still doing apt-/get
I have a lot to learn
iirc, apt-get is the version to use in scripts. They keep the input & output consistent so that it won’t break things.
Regular old apt is for humans to use at the command prompt, and that’s what I use all the time.
How is apt better for humans?
Less options and it expects user input, so when you update and there’s a changelog or warning, it shows it to you and you can read it. It doesn’t continue because it thinks you’re there reading it. The options and output are subject to change, so you don’t want it in a script. Apt-get will always have the same options and expected output for automation purposes.
Apart from letting you read the changelog, I would call it less of a “good for humans” but “bad for scripting”. Maybe it’s just me, but less options was never a good quality in my books
Yeah why do I still see this everywhere
haven’t used linux in decades but used to use aptitude over apt-get