apt vs apt-get: Why You Should Probably Stop Using the Dash

You're staring at a terminal window. It's blinking. You want to install a package on Ubuntu or Debian, and you pause for a split second. Should you type sudo apt-get install or just sudo apt install? Honestly, for a long time, it didn't really matter. Most of us just stuck with what we learned first. If you started with Linux in the early 2000s, apt-get is basically hardcoded into your muscle memory. It feels reliable. It feels "official."

But things changed around 2014. That was when apt (the command, not the system) was introduced to the world with the release of Debian 8. It wasn't just a shortcut. It was a conscious effort by developers to fix the messy, fragmented experience of managing software on Linux. If you've been wondering about the real differences in the apt vs apt-get debate, you're not alone. It’s one of those "same but different" situations that defines the Linux experience.

The Messy History of Debian Package Management

To understand why we have two commands that do almost the exact same thing, you have to look at how Linux used to work. Back in the day, managing software was a nightmare. You had to manually resolve dependencies. If Program A needed Library B, you had to go find Library B yourself.

The Advanced Package Tool (APT) changed that. But APT isn't just one tool; it’s a collection of tools. Originally, if you wanted to install a package, you used apt-get. If you wanted to search for a package, you used apt-cache. If you wanted to see if a package was installed, you might use dpkg. It was scattered. You had to learn three or four different command structures just to perform basic maintenance.

💡 You might also like: When Did the Manhattan Project Began: The Real Start Date of the Atomic Age

Developers realized this was a high barrier to entry for new users. It was clunky. So, they created apt. Think of apt as a "best of" compilation album. It takes the most commonly used features from apt-get and apt-cache, cleans them up, and puts them under one roof. It’s simplified. It’s pretty. And frankly, it’s what you should be using 90% of the time.

Breaking Down the Technical Differences

When you run a command, apt is essentially calling the same underlying libraries as apt-get. They both talk to the same database of packages. They both use the same /etc/apt/sources.list file to figure out where to download stuff from.

However, apt is designed for humans. apt-get is designed for machines.

The Progress Bar and Eye Candy

The most immediate thing you'll notice when comparing apt vs apt-get is the visual feedback. When you install something with apt, you get a nice little progress bar at the bottom of your terminal. It tells you exactly how far along the process is. apt-get doesn't do that. It just spits out lines of text until it's finished.

It sounds like a small detail. It isn't. When you're installing a massive suite of software like GNOME or a full LAMP stack, seeing "75% complete" is a lot more reassuring than a wall of scrolling text that looks like a scene from The Matrix.

Summarizing the Changes

When you run apt upgrade, it gives you a clear summary of what's happening. It tells you which packages are being upgraded, which ones are being installed for the first time, and—crucially—how much space they will take up. While apt-get provides this info too, it’s often buried in a more technical, harder-to-read format.

Command Consolidation

This is where the real value lies. Look at how the commands map out:

• apt-get update becomes apt update
• apt-get install becomes apt install
• apt-cache search becomes apt search
• apt-cache show becomes apt show

You no longer have to jump between apt-get and apt-cache. You just use apt. It’s consistent. It makes sense.

Why apt-get Still Exists (And Why You Might Need It)

If apt is so much better, why hasn't apt-get been deleted? The answer is stability.

Linux is built on scripts. Millions of them. Servers all over the planet rely on Bash scripts that were written ten or fifteen years ago to automate updates and deployments. If the Debian developers suddenly removed apt-get, those scripts would break. The world’s infrastructure would essentially catch fire.

apt-get is considered "backwards compatible." Its interface is locked in stone. It won't change. This makes it perfect for automation. When you’re writing a script, you don't want a progress bar. You don't want colors or fancy formatting. You want predictable, stable output that won't change when a new version of the OS comes out.

Furthermore, apt is still technically "unstable" in the eyes of some hardcore sysadmins—not that it crashes, but that its output format is subject to change. If you try to use apt in a script, you might even see a warning message telling you that the interface isn't stable for scripting.

Use apt for your daily driving. Use apt-get for your scripts.

Misconceptions: Does One Perform Better?

I've heard people claim that apt is faster than apt-get. Or that apt-get handles dependencies more "correctly."

Neither is true.

They use the same backend. The speed of your install depends on your internet connection and the speed of the mirrors you're hitting, not whether you typed the dash or not. They resolve dependencies using the same logic.

There is one minor difference in how they handle "orphaned" packages, though. When you use apt to remove a package, it’s often a bit more aggressive (in a good way) about suggesting you run autoremove to clean up unused dependencies. But in terms of the actual binary being installed? It’s the exact same file.

Specific Features Exclusive to apt

There are a couple of things apt does that its older brother simply doesn't.

Take apt list. This is a fantastic command. You can run apt list --installed to see every single thing you’ve put on your system. You can use apt list --upgradable to see exactly what’s waiting for an update without actually triggering the update process. apt-get doesn't have a direct equivalent for this that is as easy to use.

Then there's the edit-sources command. Instead of trying to remember where the sources file is and opening it with nano or vi, you can just type sudo apt edit-sources. It opens the file in your preferred editor automatically. It’s a quality-of-life improvement that shows the developers were thinking about the user experience.

Real-World Examples: The Commands in Action

Let’s look at a common workflow. Imagine you're trying to set up a media server.

If you’re using the old-school way, you’d do this:

1. sudo apt-get update
2. apt-cache search plex
3. sudo apt-get install plexmediaserver

Using the modern apt way:

💡 You might also like: Is the 77 LG OLED C4 Actually Worth the Upgrade?

1. sudo apt update
2. apt search plex
3. sudo apt install plexmediaserver

It feels more natural. It’s fewer keystrokes. It sounds trivial, but over a day of working in the terminal, those small efficiencies add up.

What Most People Get Wrong

The biggest mistake people make is thinking that apt is just an alias for apt-get. It isn't. It’s a separate binary. If you look in /usr/bin/, you will see both files. They are different tools designed for different use cases.

Another misconception is that apt replaces dpkg. It doesn't. dpkg is the low-level tool that actually installs the .deb files. Both apt and apt-get are "front-ends" for dpkg. They handle the "cloud" part—finding the file, downloading it, and figuring out what else it needs. Once the file is on your hard drive, they both hand it off to dpkg to do the heavy lifting.

Should You Switch?

Honestly? Yes. If you are typing commands into a terminal manually, there is almost no reason to use apt-get in 2026.

The only exception is if you are working on an extremely old system—we’re talking legacy servers running Debian 7 or older. But if you’re on any modern version of Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Kali, or Debian, apt is the way to go.

It’s safer, too. apt full-upgrade is generally smarter about handling changing dependencies than the old apt-get dist-upgrade. It handles the removal of old packages more gracefully during a major version jump.

Actionable Steps for Your Linux Workflow

Transitioning your habits doesn't have to be a big deal. Start small.

1. Update your aliases. If you really can't stop typing apt-get, you could alias it in your .bashrc or .zshrc file, though I'd recommend just learning the new way.

2. Use the "list" feature. Next time you want to see what's on your system, don't use dpkg -l. Try apt list --installed. It's much easier to read.

3. Check for upgrades regularly. Run apt list --upgradable once a week. It gives you a "peek" at what’s coming before you commit to a full system upgrade.

4. Keep scripts traditional. If you're writing a script to automate your server setup, stick to apt-get. It ensures that your script will run even on systems where apt might behave slightly differently or where the "stable" CLI isn't guaranteed.

The evolution of apt vs apt-get is a perfect example of how Linux is maturing. It’s moving away from being a "tool for experts only" and toward being a refined, user-friendly environment. Use the tools that make your life easier. For 99% of your terminal work, that tool is apt.

💡 You might also like: Who brought the astronauts back and the shift that changed spaceflight forever

Summary of Key Differences

• apt: Better for users. Has progress bars. Consolidates commands.
• apt-get: Better for scripts. No fancy output. Guaranteed stability across decades.
• Both: Use the same repositories. Perform the same basic tasks. Safe to use interchangeably for package installation.

The dash in apt-get is becoming a relic of the past. It's time to let it go. Enjoy the progress bar. It's actually quite satisfying.