As much as I have issues with the snap implementation, I really want to live in a world where my base os is solid and everything else is easily updatable. LTS, with the latest apps.
Snap and flatpak achieve this, and I want more of that. Just less… frustrating. And less not-invented-here like.
And less not-invented-here like.
The only party playing that game is Canonical. Everybody else already agreed on Flatpak.
Flatpak cannot do what’s discussed in the article. Snap can and it was started prior to Flatpak. If Flatpak was able to do what Snap can, you’d have half a point.
Flatpak cannot do what’s discussed in the article.
Nobody claimed 100% feature overlap. For regular GUI applications both work relatively similar, to the point that Snap now happily uses technologies developed for Flatpak, such as Portals.
it was started prior to Flatpak.
That’s irrelevant. One could just as well argue that Flatpak evolved from developments (OSTree, etc.) that are even older but that beside the point. Fact is that OSTree and Flatpak are vendor neutral and Snap isn’t. Attempts at vendor lock-in caused Valve leave Ubuntu and later choose Flatpak on SteamOS.
Snap has the ability to do the base system in a much more modular way and could be really cool for an immutable system. Forcing them on desktop users with their transitional deb packages and making it heavily integrated with only one repository really screwed it up.
Also I’m not sure about slow startup times. Are those still an issue? If so, then I would be sure to considet Ubuntu dead and not only not recommend it but actively recommend switching away from it.
Yes, they are still an issue. It is irritating enough that I have currently zero snaps and would rather build from source if snap is the only binary option.
