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?

  • Revan343@lemmy.ca
    183·
    2 months ago

    Snaps are proprietary, flatpacks are not, is the long and short of it

    • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
      56·
      2 months ago

      They are not. But the store is proprietary and snapd doesnt allow other stores. You could patch snapd to allow other stores though and the format is open

      • d_k_bo@feddit.de
        181·
        2 months ago

        Snaps are just as “open source” as “Office Open XML” (.docx, .pptx etc.) are open file formats.

        If there isn’t a fully open source software stack, it isn’t really open source.

      • rotopenguin@infosec.pubEnglish
        16·
        2 months ago

        You can’t “just patch it” to make snap work with another store. Instead what you’ve done is invented an entirely different store, which you’re now going to have to maintain. It is never going to be upstreamed to Canonical. You are going to be in a perpetual tug-of-war with Canonical driving snap development towards their own needs and not your own.