The sells pitch for apt is "Apt is a newer, more user-friendly version of apt-get." Apt has been around for 10 years at this point, so if they haven't switched they probably aren't going to.

The primary difference between apt and apt-get is apt has better dependency resolution and apt cleans up after itself when you do upgrades (it uninstalls packages that are no longer used).

Speaking for myself: both apt and apt-get are different frontends to the same package management system and repository, which is shared by Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and other Debian-based distros. I like the package management system; which frontend one uses (apt, apt-get, aptitude, nala, etc) is of secondary importance, as they differ only in user interface and aesthetics.

`apt` (the program) is a relatively recent addition to the APT (Advanced Package Tool) ecosystem - until not that long ago, `apt-get` was the way to install packages, and `apt` is now a "cleaner" way of interacting with APT.

I think they mean the repos. I wouldn't be surprised if apt-get is usually an alias for apt, but I don't know, I just type in apt and what I want to do.

On a server we use nala instead, it's quite nice actually, so maybe I'll start using it elsewhere too.