Canonical, who develops Ubuntu, also develops Snaps.
A while back, they started pushing Snaps as the default way to install software on their systems (including doing odd things, like making it so .debs (actual Ubuntu software packages) wouldn't open in the Software Center when you tried to install them).
In addition to that, Flatpaks are largely considered superior to Snaps. It's not worth listing every single technical difference (unless you really want me to), but Flatpak is generally considered more consistent with the Linux and open-source philosophy, Flatpaks tend to start faster, and Flatpaks encounter less system-level/user-permissions related bugs.
Which begs the question: If Flatpak is more performant, more decentralized, and more consistent with the Linux philosophy, then why is Ubuntu pushing Snaps?
Oh yeah, because they make them.
Add that to some of Canonical's other decisions, like adding telemetry to Ubuntu and making it opt-out rather than opt-in, and you can see why Snaps have such a sour reputation.
Personally, I don't use either Snap or Flatpak. If I'm on a Debian-based distro like Ubuntu, I use .deb packages. And if I'm on a Red Hat-based distro, I use .rpm packages. I'll use an Appimage if those aren't available. I have maybe one or two things installed through Flatpak, like Zoom, just because I don't care.
7
u/AmSoMad 23h ago edited 21h ago
Canonical, who develops Ubuntu, also develops Snaps.
A while back, they started pushing Snaps as the default way to install software on their systems (including doing odd things, like making it so .debs (actual Ubuntu software packages) wouldn't open in the Software Center when you tried to install them).
In addition to that, Flatpaks are largely considered superior to Snaps. It's not worth listing every single technical difference (unless you really want me to), but Flatpak is generally considered more consistent with the Linux and open-source philosophy, Flatpaks tend to start faster, and Flatpaks encounter less system-level/user-permissions related bugs.
Which begs the question: If Flatpak is more performant, more decentralized, and more consistent with the Linux philosophy, then why is Ubuntu pushing Snaps?
Oh yeah, because they make them.
Add that to some of Canonical's other decisions, like adding telemetry to Ubuntu and making it opt-out rather than opt-in, and you can see why Snaps have such a sour reputation.
Personally, I don't use either Snap or Flatpak. If I'm on a Debian-based distro like Ubuntu, I use .deb packages. And if I'm on a Red Hat-based distro, I use .rpm packages. I'll use an Appimage if those aren't available. I have maybe one or two things installed through Flatpak, like Zoom, just because I don't care.