I am so sorry this got so long. I’m absolutely horrible at brevity.

Applications use things called libraries to provide particular functions rather than implement those functions themselves. So like “handle HTTP request” as an example, you can just use a HTTP library to handle it for you so you can focus on developing your application.

As time progresses, libraries change and release new versions. Most of the time one version is compatible with the other. Sometimes, especially when there is a major version change, the two version are incompatible. If an application relied on that library and a major incompatible change was made, the application also needs to be changed for the new version of the library.

A Linux distro usually selects the version of each library that they are going to ship with their release and maintain it via updates. However, your distro provider and some neat program you might use are usually two different people. So the neat program you use might have change their application to be compatible with a library that might not make it into your distro until next release.

At that point you have one of two options. Wait until your distro provides the updated library or the go it alone route of you updating your own library (which libraries can depend on other libraries, which means you could be opening a whole Pandora’s box here). The go it alone route also means that you have to turn off your distro’s updates because they’ll just overwrite everything you’ve done library wise.

This is where snaps, flatpaks, and appimages come into play. In a very basic sense, they provide a means for a program to include all the libraries it’ll need to run, without those libraries conflicting with your current setup from the distro. You might hear them as “containerized programs”, however, they’re not exactly the Docker style “container”, but from an isolating perspective, that’s mostly correct. So your neat application that relies on the newest libraries, they can be put into a snap, flatpak, or appimage and you can run that program with those new libraries no need for your distro to provide them or for you to go it alone.

I won’t bore you on the technical difference between the formats, but just mostly focus on what I usually hear is the objectionable issue with snaps. Snaps is a format that is developed by Canonical. All of these formats have a means of distribution, that is how do you get the program to install and how it is updated. Because you know, getting regular updates of your program is still really important. With snaps, Canonical uses a cryptographic signature to indicate that the distribution of the program has come from their “Snaps Store”. And that’s the main issue folks have taken with snaps.

So unlike the other kinds of formats, snaps are only really useful when they are acquired from the Canonical Snaps Store. You can bypass the checking of the cryptographic signature via the command line, but Ubuntu will not automatically check for updates on software installed via that method, you must check for updates manually. In contrast, anyone can build and maintain their own flatpak “store” or central repository. Only Canonical can distribute snaps and provide all of the nice features of distribution like automatic updates.

So that’s the main gripe, there’s technical issues as well between the formats which I won’t get into. But the main high level argument is the conflicting ideas of “open and free to all” that is usually associated with the Linux group (and FOSS [Free and open-source software] in general) and the “only Canonical can distribute” that comes with snaps. So as @sederx indicated, if that’s not an argument that resonates with you, the debate is pretty moot.

There’s some user level difference like some snaps can run a bit slower than a native program, but Canonical has updated things with snaps to address some of that. Flatpak sandboxing can make it difficult to access files on your system, but flatpak permissions can be edited with things like Flatseal. Etc. It’s what I would file into the “papercut” box of problems. But for some, those papercuts matter and ultimately turn people off from the whole Linux thing. So there’s arguments that come from that as well, but that’s so universal “just different in how the papercut happens” that I just file that as a debate between container and native applications, rather a debate about formats.

Here friend, I also didn’t know

Snap is a software packaging and deployment system developed by Canonical for operating systems that use the Linux kernel and the systemd init system. The packages, called snaps, and the tool for using them, snapd, work across a range of Linux distributions[3] and allow upstream software developers to distribute their applications directly to users. Snaps are self-contained applications running in a sandbox with mediated access to the host system. Snap was originally released for cloud applications[4] but was later ported to also work for Internet of Things devices[5][6] and desktop[7][8] applications.

🫰🤏🫰

I’m using Linux for almost 30 years and never use snap or flatpak. I install native apps with apt or pacman or whatever.

When would it become an issue?

Snaps just create additional confusion

It’s the most stable distro I’ve used so far. Manjaro just seems like it’s a ticking time bomb just waiting for borked o’clock to come. I couldn’t get Nvidia drivers working on fedorat all. Ubuntu was just slow as ass. I don’t know why. But it was just fucked from junk street. I’ve given it a go a few times. Just slow wet ass. Kali is snappy and clean but not meant to be a daily driver. Not would I use it as one.

Mint works. It’s relatively snappy. I like the gui. It’s customizabe.

So far I’ve got Steam running flawlessly. Haven’t tried much else yet.

As an anecdote, the only games that I play that require more fixing than pasting something into the launch options or using another version of Proton are VR games. Half Life: Alyx somehow works perfectly fine. Otherwise the devs forget to tick the box in their anticheat to allow Linux.

Nope I use it and they are on the most recent stable Debian. No snaps and built in flatpack support.

I’m running the most recent version, based on Bookworm, as my daily driver.

LMDE6 came out within the last couple of months. It’s based on Debian 12 which, at time of writing, is less than 6 months old.

Upgrading is still wise every couple of years because the base Debian distro also reaches EOL, but yes, rolling updates occur constantly in the meantime. Provided the system owner allows them to anyway.

You probably thought that because debian moves so slow.

It was weird. Ubuntu 18.04 LTS printed perfectly. First try, every time. Barring printer issues not related to the OS anyway. Then, 20.04 dropped, and I couldn’t print anything. For two years, I had to move files to the Mac on the front desk to print at work because it refused to print anything. Same printer. I tried a few fixes people had posted, but none worked for me, and most fixes were for HP printers and mine is an Epson, which no one reported any problems with.

Now, with 22.04, I get intermittent printing. It works more often than not, but I’d estimate my print jobs get randomly canceled about 30% of the time. Which is annoying, but not deal-breaking since I usually just push it through again, and it works. To be fair, it might be because of wireless printing, but I doubt it since like I said, 18.04 worked flawlessly with the exact same setup. I might just try out Mint sometime and see if it makes a difference.

I find Redhat annoying with how they lock down access to KB articles unless you have a subscription and certain "proprietary " things they do but I managed over 500 RHEL 7 and 8 servers at my previous job and I will say that their support is excellent, and RHEL is rock solid. Satellite server on the other hand, that thing is a steaming pile of garbage…

It’s supposedly containerisation, but not really docker. After all, docker itself merely presents the OS’s underlying feature in a somewhat more accessible way (keyword: somewhat).

Snap is more like a big ecosystem around that idea that breaks everything that should work in that context, is a security nightmare and is sold as “work anywhere” but really only work in one place, which developers could have targeted in the beginning without having to rely on Snap to begin with.

I would actually benefit from beig able to keeps different versions of dependencies rn. Got a deprecated software wich forces me to exclude a package from my updates.

Debian remains the king of “something stable that works well”. And with release of Debian 12 that brought a lot of quality-of-life improvements, easier non-free package managing etc, many users go for it on their desktops. So I suggest you do too.

Fedora runs at a twice annual release model and includes kernel and firmware updates within those releases whereas Ubuntu matches a kernel with a release.

Their packages, to me, feel much higher quality in terms of reliability and reaction time to reported bugs. They also test and guarantee updates for packages in their repos. I ran my college laptop through 15 system upgrades without any issues, nothing has been that reliable for me.

I enjoyed using Ubuntu for several years and hadn’t considered Fedora until they were the first to default to Wayland (f21) and never switched again.

You can do anything on any distro, so you end up just shopping for your fav package manager and default repo and staying there. I encourage you to play with all of them with a separated /home partition or so it’s easy to shop.

Fedora tends to include a lot of the latest tech in a stable working configuration, stuff like Wayland and GNOME in the past and more. I like that I can get that while still enjoying a nice curated set of package repositories and without relying on something like the AUR for most packages. I’m happy to let others do the testing on the absolute bleeding edge and take the risks while I get to enjoy the fruits of that with a lot less pain with Fedora.

Fedora is moving a bit faster than Debian(but it’s pretty unstable), the main selling point is in my opinion dnf/rpm, but on a server a rhel clone would be a better choice. Pop OS and especially Mint are great distros, Debian is great but very outdated, I would try them live and then decide

Newbies should be taught to review what they install beforehand on the AUR which almost anyone can contribute to with minimal barriers. Most users treat it like any other package repository but its not the same thing and it’s definitely more risky then a curated repository.

Ubuntu asks you if you’re fine with sending usage statistics to canonical and if you say ‘no’, the distro won’t send anything and never ask you again*

Worse thing about snaps is that the server that provides them is propietary and owned by canonical.

Open source people tend not to like when things are not open source.

Other than that they are like flakpacks but blessed by canonical. Sometimes they are more curated or there’s more official releases on snaps that flakpacks.

Both are a way to deliver software without falling in dependency hell and kind of isolated and more secure(?).

Also is a way to wait 10-15 seconds to launch a simple app so there’s that.

Good - Snaps are more advanced flat packs

Bad - Made by the company that makes Ubuntu