Apt-get vs. apt

Which one do you prefer and why?
I stick to apt but there can be many opinions

Attached: shocked-woman-looking-at-computer-screen-while-fucking-it-up-using-ubuntu.jpg (300x470, 24K)

sorcery

Attached: 1539885962847.png (1024x1113, 73K)

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

Attached: 9F2B3497-2217-4B3C-8546-01DCE17D79A4.png (1340x1077, 1.25M)

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

Attached: 1463538914408.jpg (295x295, 24K)

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

Attached: file_3.png (1080x1032, 1.43M)

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

Attached: 1563289703417.png (140x202, 34K)

Yum

xbps-install

.msi

Checked and phenomenally based.

Attached: 11sBLVxNs7v6WA.gif (500x226, 471K)