I’ve gathered that a lot of people in the nix space seem to dislike snaps but otherwise like Flatpaks, what seems to be the difference here?

Are Snaps just a lot slower than flatpaks or something? They’re both a bit bloaty as far as I know but makes Canonicals attempt worse?

Personally I think for home users or niche there should be a snap less variant of this distribution with all the bells and whistles.

Sure it might be pointless, but you could argue that for dozens of other distros that take Debian, Fedora or Arch stuff and make it as their own variant, I.e MX Linux or Manjaro.

What are your thoughts?

  • Count Regal Inkwell
    32·
    8 months ago

    Imma be honest. I never used Snap. I had left ubuntu long before they started rolling it out.

    That said, hearing they redirect apt calls to snap instead feels – A bit too microsofty for my tastes

    Like, when you use a flatpak (or even a snap!) in a non-ubuntu distro, you’re not forced to use it. And if the same package exists on both the repo and on flatpak/snap, you CAN choose to get it from any of the three sources. Forcing people into snap is weird and scummy.

    I have heard that snap is slower than flatpak, but also that it can do some stuff flatpak cannot, but again, didn’t test enough to know it.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      That said, hearing they redirect apt calls to snap instead feels – A bit too microsofty for my tastes

      I also haven’t been with an Ubuntu based distro for awhile, but I’ve got a lot of affection for Canonical generally. I even accepted the idea of the amazon-in the-dash-thing (which had a lot of folks sharpening pitchforks some years back) as being kind of an honest mistake - so excited that they could that they didn’t consider if they should, sort of.

      But yeah, that’s exactly what it feels like with snaps, and for that specific reason.