On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:14:55 +0200, br...@linuxsynths.com wrote: >Funny! I would have said about the same thing, but for apt-get.
Hi, apt and apt-get make not much of a difference, it's just that apt does use an easy to understand name instead if dist-upgrade, which is named full-upgrade and a newbie don't need to use apt-cache or dpkg to search, show or list. It also provides an option to edit sources.list, so a newbie does not need to know where it's located. Since apt is new, it doesn't need to be backwards compatible. Since it's the new official Ubuntu command line tool for package management, pitfalls introduced by other user-friendly tools, at the moment just aptitude comes to mind, could be ruled out, since Ubuntu and apt defaults will fit very well together. I can't see any advantage for a newbie, when dealing with apt-get, instead of learning how to use apt. Advanced users likely prefer the apt-get defaults, I at least temporarily need to use apt with -o APT::Color=\"0\" because otherwise the output could be unreadable on my monitor. To get completely rid of it, I would have to edit the config. That's why I agree that apt-get could be more comfortable for experienced users, used to it. Why do you think that apt-get is easier to use for newbies? Regards, Ralf -- ubuntu-studio-users mailing list ubuntu-studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
