> No, but the thing is about the shell is you can automate it, so random stuff could break shell scripts. In this particular case, the user used the "apt" comm

> No, but the thing is about the shell is you can automate it, so random stuff could break shell scripts. In this particular case, the user used the "apt" command, which is meant to be used by humans and not by scripts. It's explicitly documented that its output is unstable, and prints out a warning when stdout is not an interactive tty. For scripting, use of the apt-get/apt-cache/etc tools is recommended.