Which one do you prefer and why?
I stick to apt but there can be many opinions
Apt-get vs. apt
sorcery
But how do you get any of the apt's without apt-get?
How does it know you want to get it instead of give it?
Apt-get just makes sense
apt because colour coding
apt-get for containers
emerge
dnf
I like apt for the colours, but it's also become a lot more common in manuals and examples.
pacman
I always go with apt, too lazy to type apt-get
yup, same here
rpm-ostree
apt-get is DEPRECATED.
apt is the way to go.
There use to be different tools for different shit like apt-get apt-cache,... now it's all just apt.
aptitude
i like yum the most but i use pacman and yarn
yum
>apt list | grep ffmpeg
tip, you can use just "apt list ffmpeg."
xbepis
apt
It's the intended replacement for apt-get (and functions similar to yum).
you are inferior
pacman
Where'd you get that pic of me
As of right now I am petitioning to legally require all Arch users to wear that shirt.
guix-env
Yum
xbps-install
.msi
Checked and phenomenally based.