Linux

This is bizarre. Snap has improved a tiny bit over time, but it continues to not be that great. Meanwhile, flatpak is miles ahead. Things are generally just smoother and less annoying, even when Snap is working as intended.

Personal anecdote: I was having no end of trouble with Inkscape, it was just not working, very unreliable, all sorts of very odd issues. It got worse and worse over time to the point where it didn't even seem to understand paths to open files anymore, if it even felt like opening that day. I tried reinstalling, clearing the config, all sorts of things. I suspected maybe the version of Inkscape Snap was giving me might have a bug in it so I was looking around for alternative ways to install an older version and then for some reason I tried Flatpak. It was like some kind of magic. Totally night and day. All of a sudden Inkscape had absolutely none of the issues that the Snap version had. It just worked. After that I realized that it hadn't been a bug in that version of Inkscape at all, it was just Snap.

I haven't had any issues with any other Snaps, but that incident really opened my eyes to just how bad things can get if a program isn't packaged correctly.

@winnie snap is not so mature as flatpaks yet. Dont know if its really a nice descision.

I have said and will keep saying this, Snap continues to be one of the worst things Canonical has tried to pass off as "production ready" at least in recent times, and every time they push more for it makes me consider them even more of an untrustworthy distro vendor.

My personal experience with it is that I had to nuke it off the computers I maintain last time we updated Ubuntu to the new release (unfortunately I don't control what OS we're using, otherwise Ubuntu would have been gone faster than you could say "Snap"), because these computers have user homes on a network drive, which isn't under /home, and snap just flat out refuses to work when that is the case.

It wouldn't even be such a problem if they hadn't removed Firefox among other things from their repositories, but as it is right now, there's no way to run Firefox on Ubuntu without mucking around with PPAs if your user home is not under /home. This bug about that has been open for 7 years!

That said, I think this is fine considering Flatpak is still going to be available in the repositories, just not installed by default. I'm much more a fan of "install what you need", anyway. (But then again, that's not the style of distro Ubuntu wants to go for.)

Flavor leads (apparently) agree

Press X to doubt

Ubuntu asking its flavors to stop using something because it doesn’t is a head scratcher. Flavors regularly use things Ubuntu doesn’t, things you could argue are more intrinsic to an “Ubuntu experience”, like installers, login managers, icon themes etc. Why single out Flatpak?

IMO Canonical wants to make snap like google play, where people sell stuff and they take a 20-30 percent commission

by making it clearer about what an “Ubuntu experience” is.

The user experience will be worse, because they can't use Flatpaks without jumping through extra hoops.

So, I guess, a "Ubuntu experience" is a bad experience. Not going to argue with that.