I saw a Video from the Youtube Channel Distrotube about a Distro called Rhino Linux. And there was an interesting Feature. After the Installation, You see a Window, where You can choose what Package Format you want to install. Take a Look at the Screenshot:
I find this pretty interesting and thought that a Function like this could be a nice Idea for Zorin, too. It could be implemented in the Zorin Welcome Window. Of Course here without the Nix Packages. But with Flatpak, Snap and AppImange. I think, it could be a useful Addition and want suggest that here.
But I'm also interested what are You think about that. Do you think, that it is a good Idea or not? Could it be for Linux Starters maybe too overwhelming?
Based on poor performance of Snap and Flatpak and the issues that have been raised already, I think it is a bad idea - there is no reference to the tried and tested APT. Would prefer something that gave you the choice of what init system you wanted to implement (with resource hungry megalith systemd excluded)!
I'm not sure I like the idea all that much, for a distribution that aims to make things easier to transition from Windows. The nuances behind all these package managers and formats are complicated enough as they are, and there's no need to make the on boarding experience even more confusing.
Maybe this could be implemented in the Software Store settings, clearly labeled under some "advanced" section or something. But otherwise it'd add friction to the overall user experience without little gain.
I tested Snap in the Past and found the Performance not really good, too. It wasn't very smooth at all. And since then I used Flatpak instead. How it is today with Snap's I don't know.
With Flatpak's, I have made good Experiences with Performance. But of course You can have Issues with the limited Permissions.
Overwhelming or not - It is already there and these alternative formats are being pushed onto everyone, new or not.
So, I think this could be very useful.
Many members join and they are quickly confused by the vague package formats and nothing within the OS describes these. The Gnome Software Store opts to default to formats, without the user knowing what is going on.
An option like the above has the potential to restore awareness and choice to the end user.
Which is something we value.
I think that is preferable to the growing trend in GnuLinux of applying force and a lack of choice - and keeping the users ignorant by means of defaults in order to feed Corporate Interests.
I think this would be a good thing to add. I've been meaning to try Rhino linux again as it seems interesting, but when it first came out I could tell it was not ready for prime time.
This part of it, however, I was very happy to see. Just a quick way to let a user know what is or isn't available on the system. At the very least, it leads them to maybe ask the question "What does Flatpak/Snap/Appimage mean?".
I'd be for this in a similar fashion to what I espouse for package (not package type) installation for advanced users. I've never bothered removing snap support because I just don't install snaps and my machine has enough power to ignore snapd running, but given a toggle at install time or post-install OOBE, I'd certainly flip the switch to not install or remove it.
It's interesting that it offers Flatseal as a separate option when choosing to install Flatpak. I really don't see any reason not to install them together since you're most likely going to need it.
This type of installer has been proposed in the past to allow experienced users to pick and choose what they want installed right away. In that case, something like this for package managers make sense, but I wouldn't include it in a "default" installer which should be more straight forward.
I don't disagree that guiding the user through it wouldn't be helpful but it's easy to forget how people new to Linux can easily be overwhelmed by having way too many things to keep track of.
I suppose for the same reason Zorin supports Flatpak out of the box but we have to go hunting for Flatseal on our own.
I don't know what that reason is, but I suppose it's the same one!
(If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say they're erring on the side of granularity, which I support as someone who wants pro minimum install to be more minimum.)