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?
Snap hate is largely illogical and brain dead in my view and experience. I see them at same level as systemd haters. We know how that turned out.
Snap is the only packaging system that provides sandboxing for system applications. But nobody will tell you this.
I no longer use Ubuntu since I matured enough for Debian, but I can use Ubuntu over other immature or weird distros any day.
Snap my ass. Snaps are broken by design as they don’t use much in the way of standards
How are snaps broken by design and standards?
The directories are non standard and global and they use loop mounts for some reason. Software shouldn’t depend on root just to run.
System software depends on root though? Snaps have a design that allow system software sandboxing, which no other system allows, and is transparent.
Except flatpak does it better and it doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel. All flatpak uses is bubblewrap
Flatpak cannot sandbox system applications. Snap can.
What is a “system application”? If it is part of the system wouldn’t you not want to sandbox it? Also selinux exists for a reason.
Is this your level of knowledge of software systems and security?