These days, apt is for humans whereas apt-get is for scripts. apt’s output is designed for humans and may change between releases, whereas apt-get is guaranteed to remain consistent to avoid breaking scripts.
apt combines several commands together. For example, you can use it to install packages from both repos and local files (e.g. apt install ./foo.deb) whereas apt-get is only for packages from repos and you’d need to use dpkg for local packages.
I never considered trying to install a package from a local file through apt, but always dpkg. End result is the same of course. The web suggests dpkg rather than apt as well ( or at least the pages I ended up on ).
These days,
aptis for humans whereasapt-getis for scripts.apt’s output is designed for humans and may change between releases, whereasapt-getis guaranteed to remain consistent to avoid breaking scripts.aptcombines several commands together. For example, you can use it to install packages from both repos and local files (e.g.apt install ./foo.deb) whereasapt-getis only for packages from repos and you’d need to usedpkgfor local packages.Huh TIL.
I never considered trying to install a package from a local file through apt, but always dpkg. End result is the same of course. The web suggests dpkg rather than apt as well ( or at least the pages I ended up on ).