I think it'd be great to include just a couple reasons or tradeoffs for using flatpacks instead of snap. I know I prefer the tech not to be completely owned by Canonical for example.
So there's an entire separate distribution now just to run "apt install flatpak"?
I agree the packaging war is silly, it seems pretty clear flatpak is going to win, and snap has lots of problems, etc. I sympathize-- I just can't imagine any scenario where enough people choose to use this distro for it to be reasonably recommendable.
Flatpak is pretty great if you want to containerize things you install or are using an immutable system. The Steam Deck supports Flatpak and it's how most people install things outside of Steam.
My experience with flatpaks has been awful. Just about every app I have ever installed via flatpak has been broken in some manner because of the containerization. Some of them I was bothered to work around using flatseal but mostly I just uninstall them and use the slightly older but actually fully working version available via my distro package manager.
11 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 46.3 ms ] threadInstalling Ubuntu and setting it up to be usable is a larger and larger pain in the neck.
No need to be kind people, snaps are absolutely terrible compared to flatpaks when it comes to desktop applications, nobody likes snaps.
> Does the default installation come without snapd? Which packages are removed compared to a Ubuntu Desktop installation?
I agree the packaging war is silly, it seems pretty clear flatpak is going to win, and snap has lots of problems, etc. I sympathize-- I just can't imagine any scenario where enough people choose to use this distro for it to be reasonably recommendable.