Linux

Ok, note taken 👍

Deb support will come later, but:

If the same piece of software exists in the Ubuntu repository and the snap store the new store will only make it possible to install the snap version.

So the title is on point IMO.

It's not a click bait per se. Even after deb support they will use only snap for applications that has a snap package and only debs if it hasn't got any snap package afaik.

BUT, the "new" store is based on a community project which ALREADY supports both deb and snap.

Canonical is just weird like that, it seems. They tend to pick something and fixate on it really hard (Eg. Unity desktop, Mir, that convergent phone thing, now Snaps) and work on it until it's almost really good, then they get fixated on the next shiny thing and dump whatever they were doing to go chase that instead.

There's a benefit to Canonical, the corp that maintains Ubuntu, which is that while snaps are open source tech, the server for the snap store is closed source and snap can't be configured to point at another store.

In other words, it's about centralized control.

There are some advantages to the tech itself, like live auto-updating, which is good for security-critical server apps, but over all I'm not a fan.

Snaps are used for Ubuntu's IOT distro, and also for their upcoming immutable desktop. They even ship kernel and mesa as snap, which makes updating less likely to break a system (in case of a crash while updating, user error, ...).

That's why they push snap. Canonical doesn't mainly aim to make a apps available to all distros like flatpak does. Just like now where all distros need their own packages, snap will coexist with other package formats.

For the user it's unimportant how apps are installed, as long as they're available.

Because they controll snaps. Their backend is proprietary and they do not support any other way of distribution.

Now there are some objective benefits to Snaps compared to Flatpaks, at least so I was told. Apparently they offer significantly better documentation and integrate more tightly with the system, allowing you to do more stuff with them.

This was a while back tho, I don't know where Flatpak stands today

Yep, I can not understand why Canonical keep pushing snaps on desktop

All the servers I've spun up in the past few years have been Debian instead of my usual Ubuntu.

The last straw was kinda when I learned that installing docker via the install menu gives you the snap version instead of the normal one, with no indication that this is the case.

The fundamental difference is that flatpak is a good system, adopted by many distributions.

Snap sucks and only Ubuntu uses it.

They'll do like their Unity UI, wait many years until they realize their mistake then drop it.

The big difference is that Snap is partially proprietary. For those who like Linux for its free and open-source nature and all the benefits that confers, this is an unfortunate evolution that has a negative impact on the Linux ecosystem.

If stability is a concern, Mint has been great for me

A big issue for me with snap is, that the server side software is proprietary. So it really really does feel like they are trying for lock-in

Ubuntu / Canonical were working on Snap for some years when Flatpak came on the scene. They've been shipping Ubuntu bits using it since 2016. In addition to the legacy, Snap is more versatile than Flatpak in that it can be used to package pretty much anything, including system bits. It's also had a secure sandbox from the start. Changing to Flatpak would be a functionality downgrade for Canonical and Ununtu maintainers using Snap. In addition Flatpak can be used along with Snap on Ubuntu so there's no need to not use both for whoever finds that useful. Snap lets Ubuntu ship software using less work, which means more up-to-date bits in Ubuntu. Users can install other software via Snap or Flatpak, whichever they find more useful.

1. They kinda suck. They take a long time to launch
2. They are in practice proprietary to Ubuntu so they are not really FOSS
3. The draw of Ubuntu it is was based on Debian Testing and therefor pretty stable.
4. It's Yet Another Containerization stack. We already have flatpack, app image, chroot jails and more.

Why would a serious user want a psuedo proprietary Nth app containerization platform that sidesteps a serious incubation chain and has poor performance?

The snap store is proprietary, flatpaks handle the graphical app space better, OCI containers handle the service space better, and really high reported load times.

Flatpaks are awesome IMHO.

Debian is right there then.

Been using popos on all my computers for the past year and have been happy with it.

I'm thinking pop os or just boring plain debian. This snap shit is just getting too much to bother with.