apt vs apt-get

[Qqmike]

jlittle: sudo apt full-upgrade rather than the misleadingly named sudo apt-get dist-upgrade... BTW, missing from the howtogeek post

Ah ... Thanks, jlittle.

[jlittle]

I prefer the newer apt, and IMO it is better for those new to doing APT stuff from the CLI; but there's not much difference.

Yes, apt-get is slightly lower "level", but in bringing out the new command, a few niceties have been added:

1. sudo apt update tells you when it's finished whether or not there's packages that are upgradeable (landed in vivid)
2. sudo apt full-upgrade rather than the misleadingly named sudo apt-get dist-upgrade... BTW, missing from the howtogeek post
3. sudo apt full-upgrade has slightly more colourful progress indication

[Qqmike]

apt vs apt-get

A decent discussion (for Debian) with examples and clarification:
http://www.howtogeek.com/234583/simp...Speed=noscript
Special note on Mint's new scripts. Informative comments re the documentation of all this.

Maybe it's a case of what you are used to, but I feel that the apt-get's are easier to understand, maybe more "low-level." I see many people here using just the apt commands as highlighted in the article.