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?

    • Possibly linux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      47 months ago

      The store is SaaS (service as a software substitute) and not necessary proprietary

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -17 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        177 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        167 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.

        • Possibly linux
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Not proprietary though

          It is SaaS (service as a software substitute) and vendor lock in