Snaps & flatpacks

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 18:08:50 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>There absolutely is at least one excellent technical reason: snaps are
>significantly slower to start up than native applications.

There are way more reasons, but that would start an unneeded flame war,
if we e.g. would argue about security. There are reasons that distros
that support a sanp alike approach, do not support snaps, but chose
an alternative to snaps, let alone distros that completely refuse this
approach.

Tom's claim that some people won't eat anything they've never seen
before vs well done testing and reasoning. Actually the Arch Linux
developers were one of the first that completely migrated to systemd
already years ago, I doubt that Ubuntu already finished this migration,
but since I stay with 16.04 I can't comment on later releases. I would
say that snaps are just a nonstarter as upstart was. Upstart was
dropped in favour of systemd and IMO upstart was relatively good, but
it probably suffered from the Ubuntu solo action. Snaps are another
Ubuntu solo action.

[OT] Probably the only LSB thing in common is the command "lsb_release",
but usually distros do not have much more LSB in common. [/OT]

It might not be important what other distro's developers think about
snaps, but it's from value what is posted to e.g. Ubuntu devel discuss
and what upstream (the developers writing software) thinks about snaps.