The binary is called apt-get. There are others like apt-cache etc.
Apt is a script that just figures out which binary to use and passes the arguments on.
- apt update -> apt-get update
- apt policy -> apt-cache policy
You know, I thought I knew why, but this was new information to me, so I guess I didn’t.
Thanks for sharing this concise explico!
These days,
apt
is for humans whereasapt-get
is for scripts.apt
’s output is designed for humans and may change between releases, whereasapt-get
is guaranteed to remain consistent to avoid breaking scripts.apt
combines several commands together. For example, you can use it to install packages from both repos and local files (e.g.apt install ./foo.deb
) whereasapt-get
is only for packages from repos and you’d need to usedpkg
for local packages.Huh TIL.
I never considered trying to install a package from a local file through apt, but always dpkg. End result is the same of course. The web suggests dpkg rather than apt as well ( or at least the pages I ended up on ).
Discord is distributed as a .Deb if you don’t use flatpak because they can’t be bothered to set up a repo.
The very useful thing about local file install is that unlike dpkg, apt will install dependencies automatically
Same with Zoom.
And here I am using gdebi for those kinds of local packages…
Thats weird, they do have an arch official package and that’s the one they usually don’t make because AUR is a thing. Have you checked lately?
An “official” arch package? The arch package is packaged by the arch maintainers. https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/discord
The maintainers of the PKGBUILD are all arch maintainers, which just downloads the generic
.tar.gz
file discord provides and puts it in all the places you need for you.The “official” arch packages are just PKGBUILDs like the AUR, except prebuilt, managed (and signed) by the arch team.
I didn’t know, thanks! I guess in hindsight I meant “official” as in, it’s not just some rando, I can trust it won’t break, and I don’t have to manually download the stuff every time xD
Yep! All those things are true, but it’s due to the hard work of the archlinux team and not discord doing anything valuable. The debian/ubuntu/etc team could probably repackage the tar.xz or include the deb file in their official repos if they wanted. They just don’t. And given how simple the workaround is, i don’t really blame them. Debian isn’t going to ship something that will require constant updating to work with remote servers, and ubuntu probably just wants you to use a snap anyway.
The archlinux team is just pretty cool.
I have checked on every new update because their fuckass client apparently can’t update itself in big 2025 and instead just opens your browser to the download url because that’ll convince people that Linux is great.
Updating itself isn’t really the Linux way of things. The Linux way is to have a centralised place like pacman or apt and to download everything at once. Every app having their own download and update system sounds like a nightmare.
Me use apt. Why use many letter when few letter do trick?
Hahahaha Kevin
Me laughing in pacman
“Hello, I would like to -Syu a package.” “Can I -Rsc this?”
Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
Wait until you learn of aptitude…
How my brain distinguishes them:
apt-get when you want full verbose output
apt when you want to feel fancy with progress bars and colours
apt install nano (simple, clean)
apt-get install nano (works too, but more detailed output)
Apt-get give more technical output , helps in scripting .
apt-get has a fixed format machine parseable output
apts output tries to be more human readable and is subject to change
apt
is newer and mostly supersedes apt-get/apt-cache/etc tools, tries to be a more-approachable frontend.They interoperate though, so if you’re happy with using a mix of them, go for it. I generally just use
apt
.EDIT: There were also some older attempts to produce a unified frontend, like
aptitude
.mostly supersedes apt-get/apt-cache/etc tools,
Except for in scripts. Debian guarantee that the output format of
apt-get
will never change and thus it’s safe to use in scripts that parse the output, whereas they don’t have the same guarantee forapt
, which can change between releases.